Dodoso la maswali 50 Kuelekea Sinodi ya 16 ya Maaskofu Mwaka 2023: Kanisa Katoliki Linapaswa Kutumia Zana Gani Katika Kuzisoma Alama za Nyakati?

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Somatology (Tabia za magimba): What are the properties of physical bodies and how do they explain the relationships between bodies, time and space? The following are the known properties of matter: figure, divisibility, indestructability, porosity, compressibility, dilatability, mobility, inertia, attraction, repulsion, polarity, elasticity, extension, impenetrability and irreplicability. The latter three properties are more relevant to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, asserts that, after consecration prayer, the body of Jesus Christ, who is in heaven, is truly, really, wholly and substantially present in every consecrated host wherever it may be located on earth. These claims contradict the somatological principles of impenetrability and irreplicability of bodies. Since the 16 century during the Reformation the Protestants opposed them and argued that the consecration process was a symbolical and not literal process. The Protestants avoided the risk of being labelled cannibalists, while the Catholic Church consistently embraces it until today. Which doctrine of the Eucharist is more rational and close to truth as seen by God?

The Former Pope Benedict XVI presiding over the consecration process​

SOMATOLOGY, CONSECRATION OF BREAD AND WINE AND EUCHARISTIC CANNIBALISM IN CATHOLIC LITURGY: WHERE DO WE GO AFTER SYNOD 2023?

Somatology is the philosophical study of the general properties of matter in the universe as opposed to the peculiar properties of individual forms of matter.

We are surrounded by forests, mountains, rivers, seas, animals, birds, and insects, the sun, the moon, stars, planets, comets, cars, buildings, rocks and stones. They are collectively called physical bodies, in a word, matter. It surrounds us and exists outside our consciousness, does not depend on our consciousness, and is or may be reflected directly or indirectly in consciousness.

In general, the visible universe is made up of physical substances that occupy space, have mass, and are composed of atoms, which are found in three states, solid, liquid and gaseous states. Thus, matter is an objective reality which is given to humans by their sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by their sensations, while existing independently of them.

A separate and determinate portion of matter in space is called a body. It has weight and volume, and is contained by space. All terrestrial bodies are divided into three classes, namely, animals, plants, and minerals.

The following are the known properties of matter: figure, divisibility, indestructability, porosity, compressibility, dilatability, mobility, inertia, attraction, repulsion, polarity, elasticity, extension, impenetrability and irreplicability.

The latter three properties are more relevant to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist and the related process of consecration.

Extension is the occupation of a portion of space by a body. Since matter exists under the containment of space, bodies occupy definite portions of space and are therefore extended in three dimensions of breadth, height and thickness. On this view there are regions of space or spacetime and there are entities such as people, tables, social groups, electrons, and so on that are located at those regions.

This is to say that, an entity x is exactly located at region y as x has-at-y the same size and shape as y, and stands-at-y in all the same spatiotemporal relations to things as does y. Thus, spheres are exactly located only at spherical regions, cubes only at cubical regions, and so on.

Also, this means that, x is partially located at region r iff r is a sub-region of a region x is exactly located at; and x is multi-located iff there are two or more distinct regions that x is exactly located at.

Impenetrability is the property of matter by which a body excludes every other body from the part of space it itself occupies.

It is a property in consequence of which no two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time, or a property in consequence of which arises the impossibility of co-location of two or more bodies. Thus, two bodies are impenetrable if and only if they cannot be in the same place at the same time.

By definition, colocation or penetrability would be a property in consequence of which entities both share location and parts. That is: For any ordinary bodies X and Y, and for any time t, X is co-located with Y at t iff X and Y exactly occupy the same place at t.

According to the principle of impenetrability of bodies, the above statement is false. Then, the following anti-colocation principle applies: Necessarily, at any time t, for any ordinary bodies X and Y, if X and Y are collocated at t, then X is identical with Y.

And irreplicability is the property of matter in consequence of which a body cannot be multilocated, that is, it cannot exactly be located at more than one region. It asserts that, necessarily, no physical body has more than one exact location.

To say that an object is multi-located would be to say that it has more than one exact location at the same time. It is akin to data replication on computer storage.

On the other hand, by definition, multi-location or replicability would be a property in consequence of which an entity can be simultaneously located at two or more places at the same time. According to the principle of irreplicability of bodies, the above statement is false.

Then, the following anti-multilocation principle applies: Necessarily, at any time t, for any ordinary objects X and Y, if X and Y occupy distinct places at t, then X is distinct from Y.

Hence, ordinary objects in general, and hence persons, are nonrepeatable entities, confined to a single place at a time.

The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, asserts that, after the consecration prayer, which is administered by the Priest, the body of Jesus Christ, who is in heaven, is truly, really, wholly and substantially present in every consecrated host wherever it may be located on earth.

These claims directly contradict the somatological principles of impenetrability and irreplicability of bodies.

These contradictory claims have been examined by many theologians and philosophers, including Alexander Pruss (2009).

He has done so through an essay entitled, “The Eucharist: Real Presence and Real Absence,” appearing as chapter 23 in a book by Thomas P. Flint and Michael Rea (2009), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press), from page 512 and the following pages, constituting 13,646 words in length.

Despite his efforts as revealed in an essay that is 14,000 words long, he could not succeed in providing satisfactory answers to the questions he raises, as he problematizes the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Part of how he frames the debate is in terms of the following critical questions:

Are the actions of the human agents given a supernatural power of producing such an effect or does God produce the effect entirely by himself on the occasion of these actions? Likewise, is the reception of the Eucharist a cause of the occurrence of grace in the recipient, or does God simply happen to choose to provide grace on the occasion of the receiving of the Eucharist? If the Eucharist causes the occurrence of grace in the recipient, then in what way does this causality actually work?

What does it mean to ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ in general and what significance is to be found in the idea of Christ giving himself to us to be eaten and drunk? How does the Eucharist cause both physical and spiritual nourishment? Do Christ’s body and blood become a part of the physical body of the believing recipient? Do Christ’s body and blood revert to ordinary bread and wine just prior to being digested in the recipient’s body? Do Christ’s body and blood cease to be present in the Eucharist just before digestion in the recipient’s body? During digestion, are Christ’s body and blood transubstantiated again, this time, into the flesh and blood of the recipient?

When Christ’s words are spoken in the Eucharistic liturgy, who counts as their speaker? To whom, if to anyone, does ‘my’ refer in ‘This is my body’? Is the word ‘my’ an indexical? How does the apparently demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ gain reference to the invisible divine reality here?

In the Catholic tradition, the Eucharist is seen as a sacrifice, fulfilling the prophecy of Malachi that in messianic times a sacrifice will be offered from the rising to the setting of the sun. Yet according to the Letter to the Hebrews, Christ’s sacrifice is the only sacrifice in messianic times. Catholic theology attempts to reconcile these two claims by saying that the sacrifice of the altar and the sacrifice of Calvary are one and the same sacrifice.

What, then, are the identity and individuation conditions for sacrifices? Is there on a deep level a single act of self-giving that Christ undertook, and if so, how is it related to the events of the altar and those of Calvary? Are they perhaps manifestations of that act? Are they parts of it?

Catholic devotion talks of being present at Mass as a way of being present at Calvary. Can this be literally true, space-time being bridged in a supernatural way? Or does the Eucharistic liturgy simply represent Calvary, and if so, what philosophical account can be given of the nature of this representing—is it conventional or in some way natural, for instance?

Next come the ontological issues surrounding the question: What actually happens that makes it true to say that ‘the body and blood of Christ’ comes to be present?

The ontologically simplest answers are ones that take this presence to be nonliteral. Thus, one might simply stay on a naturalistic level and say that Christ’s body and blood are ‘present’ in the congregation’s thoughts, and are represented by the bread and wine.

Or one might say that at communion, God gives the recipient of the Eucharist graces that ultimately flow from the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood on the cross, and so the body and blood are ‘present’ through their effects.

There are, however, serious theological difficulties with these two solutions. The most obvious is that, as far back as we can trace it, Christians have generally taken it that the ‘presence’ is to be understood in a more substantive way, and have made the Eucharist a central part of their Christian worship, as is already seen in the New Testament (see e.g. Acts 2: 42 and 1 Cor. 10).

If one believes that the Christian church is guided by the Holy Spirit, at least in the central aspects of Christian life, this creates at least a strong presumption in favor of a more substantive interpretation, as opposed to the metaphorical interpretation.

Furthermore, the New Testament overall has a strong emphasis on the reality of Christ’s body and blood, in contrast to gnostics who saw the flesh as something unbecoming, and also contains Christ’s promise to abide with Christians. It would be fitting indeed for this abiding also to be bodily in some way.

Thus one should take seriously the idea of Christ’s body and blood being present in a non-metaphorical way, ‘really present’.

The doctrine of ‘real presence’ presents several questions. First, we may wonder about the sense of ‘present’ here. While we have taken ‘presence’ as not metaphorical, there may still be multiple senses of presence.

Is Christ’s body and blood ‘spatially present’ in the same sense in which the bricks of the church building are ‘spatially present’? Or is there some other nonmetaphorical way of being present that is applicable?

How can Christ’s body and blood be simultaneously present in multiple, disconnected places, wherever the Eucharistic liturgy is celebrated? Is a part present here and a part present there, or is the whole present in each place?

A parallel question concerns what happens to the bread and wine. It certainly appears as if bread and wine are present after consecration. Some take this appearance at face value, and insist that not only is Christ’s body and blood present, but so are bread and wine. This is ‘consubstantiation’.

Others insist that the appearance alone is present, and bread and wine are really absent. This conjunction of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood and the non-existence of bread and wine is, according to Pope Paul VI’s 1968 ‘Credo of the People of God’, at the core of the doctrine of ‘transubstantiation’

If consubstantiation holds, we have two options. First, by analogy with the incarnation, we could have ‘impanation’. Just as one and the same person is both a human and God, one and the same entity is both bread and body, and likewise for wine and blood, or maybe one and the same entity is both Christ and bread, as well as both Christ and wine.

Or one might have co-presence, in which case bread and body are in the same place, and wine and blood are in the same place. The co-presence version is subject to the objection that ‘this’ in ‘This is my body’ would seem to more appropriately apply to the visible of the two substances, namely bread, if there were two substances there.

If, on the other hand, transubstantiation holds, we have several further questions. Is there a real connection between the bread and wine and the body and blood, with, say, the bread and wine literally becoming transformed, or do bread and wine simply cease to exist, being followed by the coming-present of the body and blood?

What makes it be the case that bread and wine are present? Is an illusion miraculously caused in the minds of the people present? Or is it that the causal powers of the bread and wine are somehow sustained, so that light bounces off just as it did before? If so, what are these causal powers grounded in? Are they now the causal powers of Christ’s body and blood? Are they the causal powers of God? Are they self-standing causal powers, present in the same place as the body and blood?

Or had bread and wine received a power of affecting future events at a time at which they no longer exist?

“To discuss even half these questions would take a book,” Pruss (2009) claims, and then he resorts to the discussion of a single question, whether the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood, and likewise the doctrine of the real absence of bread and wine, can be defended philosophically.

His solution is highly qualified by using assumptions unpallatable to the third millenium mind.

The next Episcopal Synod 2023 is expected to intelligently respond to this challenge as a way of narrowing the gap between conservative and liberal Christianity.

Given the prevalence of somatological principles in science textbooks from kindergarten upwards, it is my hope that, the synod shall be able to make proper discernment, as and when required, in a way that narrows donw the gap between conservative and liberal Christianity.

Personally I prefer a non-cannibalistic doctrine of the Eucharist because there is a plausible non-cannibalistic interpretation of the "this is my body".

The verb to-be ("IS") in the phrase "this is my body" can be interpreted in the following possible ways:

(a) The is-of-identification: Under the “is” of identification, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of “is identical with”. For example, Julius is Nyerere, ice is water, vapor is water.

(b) The is-of-attribution: the “is” of attribution is used to ascribe an attribute or property to an object, eg, The cow is red. Here, the attribute is predicated of a subject. Then, the “is” of predication does not express an equivalence relation and, in general, “x has P” and “y has P” do not imply “x is identical to y.”

(c) The is-of-composition: The parts are said to compose the whole and the whole is composed of the parts. Composition is the relation between a whole and its parts. Saying that Nyerere’s body is (composed of) skin and bone is not to say that Socrates’ body is identical to skin and bone. There is skin and bone that do not compose Socrates. Generally, the statement of the form “A is B” translates into “A is composed of set B.” And, the statement “A is composed of set B” translates into: A compound object A is composed of a set whose members are parts known as B1, B2, …, and Bn, when these parts are taken collectively and not distributively.

(d) The is-of-signification: Under the “is” of signification, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of “is a sign of”. For example, this flag is (a sign of) Tanzania, this Cross (is a sign of) Christianity, this cow is (a sign of) God, this bread is (a sign of) my body, this wine is (a sign of) my blood.

In my opinion, we need to avoid every possibility of advocating cannibalism, even if Jesus appears to have advocated it. In fact, if Jesus said that cannibalism is okay, we would still deny him obedience in this regard, at least.

Cannibalism is not wrong simply because God said so. God said cannibalism is wrong because cannibalism is wrong, and not vice versa.

REFERENCES

1. Alexander Pruss (2009), “The Eucharist: Real Presence and Real Absence,” In: Thomas P. Flint and Michael Rea (2009), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press), Chapter 23.

2. Thomas Sattig (2015), The Double Lives of Objects: An Essay in the Metaphysics of the Ordinary World (Oxford: OUP, p.75fff and p.104ff).

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Trinitology (Utatu wa Mungu mmoja): What is the nature of the relationship between God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and the Godhead as understood within the context of Christianity? Can Christian theologians solve the following Trinitarian puzzles, and if yes, how: modalism puzzle, tritheism puzzle, subordination puzzle, procession puzzle, self-creation puzzle, divine triunity puzzle, perichoresis puzzle, and person–nature puzzle?

Mchoro wa Utatu Mtakatifu (Adopted from the English Version in the Public domain)

LOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS, METAPHYSICAL INCOHERENCES, AND THE TRINITY: IS THE CHRISTIAN GOD REALLY THE LORD OF NON-CONTRADICTION AS DEMANDED BY THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION?
​

Introduction

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is a group of words which is used daily by millions of baptized Christians in the world. It is a preface to prayers and a baptismal formula which was invented by Jesus immediately after his resurrection.

Specifically, Jesus revealed the doctrine of the Trinity in explicit terms, when he directed his disciples to "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Math. 28:18). In this passage the conjunction "and” tells us that "the Father," "the Son" and “the Holy Spirit” are three distinct agents.

And for this reason, from the moment of baptism the Trinity grounds Christian life. Thus, the clerics have a duty to render the doctrine of Trinity rationally accessible to the laity by explaining the doctrine’s theoretical coherence and practical relevance to daily Christian life.

That is, the clerics have to practically emphasize the central truth, revealed in the Bible and often cited by the creeds, that the Trinity has been revealed “for us and for our salvation” in the twenty first century just as it was in the first centuries of Christianity, when it was formulated.

So, the connection with the ordinary lives of Christians must be disclosed if the doctrine is to be teachable, preachable, and existentially meaningful for those for whose salvation it has been revealed.

However, today, there is a conceptual and practical distance that exists between the confession of the Trinity as developed in ancient Christianity and our attempts to understand it and live it in the modern world.

The doctrine’s view of reality has been expressed in the metaphysical linguistic terms of “person,” “essence,” “nature” and “substance,” this being a way of thought that is foreign to an average believer in rural communities.

A systematic analysis of the doctrine in terms of this language reveals a number of logical and metaphysical contradictions which make it unpalatable to an intellectually upright believer.

In fact, the doctrine of Trinity is one of the many issues that divide Christians into different camps, such as the West versus the East, Trinitarian Christians versus non-Trinitarian Christians, and so on.

There is a need to unite these camps by looking afresh at the doctrine with a view of reformulating in in terms of a new philosophical and theological paradigm that is compatible with the modern human mind and the demands of rational ecumenism as opposed to mysterianism-based ecumenism.

To this end, this presentation seeks to reveal the key logical and metaphysical contradictions in the doctrine of the Trinity, to propose a new philosophical and theological paradigm for the doctrine of Trinity, and finally calls upon the coming synod of Bishops to make Christianity a more rational doctrine along similar lines.

Traditional Foundations of the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity as we understand it today, was historically formulated within the first seven ecumenical councils which were held between 325 AC and 787 AC. These councils are: the First Council of Nicaea held in 325, the First Council of Constantinople held in 381, the Council of Ephesus held in 431, the Council of Chalcedon held in 451, the Second Council of Constantinople held in 553, the Third Council of Constantinople held from 680–681 and finally, the Second Council of Nicaea held in 787.

These councils were called to deal with specific issues that were occurring within the church and taken together may seem to form a creedal and confessional continuum. They are an attempt by Church leaders to reach doctrinal consensus, restore peace and develop a unified Christendom. However, the Trinitarian theological teachings arising from the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AC) are only authoritative for the Roman Catholic Church and for the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Key questions addressed by the ecumenical councils

The core teachings on the doctrine of Trinity from these councils are progressively summarized by the Nicene Creed (325 AC), Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AC), Chalcedonian Creed (451 AC), the Athanasian Creed (450 AC) and various ecumenical decrees.

However, the Athanasian Creed is not an ecumenical document. It has never had a syllable of Scriptural or Ecumenical authority, and nobody knows exactly how, or when, it came to secure general recognition in the Catholic Church. It was ignored by the Council of Trent, and by the Roman Catechism founded on that Council’s decrees. It has never been accepted by the Eastern Churches, and has been abandoned by many of the Protestant, including the Episcopal Church in America. Nevertheless, due to its comprehensiveness, the Athanasian Creed will be used as our main creedal reference.

It is named after St. Athanasius (296-373 AD), the Bishop of Alexandria in Africa, and it is roughly dated 450AD. Its text reads as follows:

• (1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
• (2) Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
• (3) And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
• (4) Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
• (5) For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
• (6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
• (7) Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
• (8) The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
• (9) The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
• (10) The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
• (11) And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
• (12) As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
• (13) So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
• (14) And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
• (15) So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
• (16) And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
• (17) So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
• (18) And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
• (19) For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
• (20) So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
• (21) The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
• (22) The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
• (23) The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
• (24) So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
• (25) And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
• (26) But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
• (27) So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
• (28) He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
• (29) Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
• (30) For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
• (31) God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
• (32) Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
• (33) Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
• (34) Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
• (35) One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
• (36) One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
• (37) For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
• (38) Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
• (39) He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
• (40) From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
• (41) At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
• (42) and shall give account of their own works.
• (43) And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
• (44) This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Thus, the Creedal text contains 44 theological statements which can be divided into two main sections.

Section one, lines 1 to 28, addresses the doctrine of the Trinity. And section two, lines 29 to 44 address the doctrine of Christology.

The 28 statements in the orthodoxy description of the doctrine of Trinity, can be collapsed into the following five key general claims:

• “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance” (unity thesis).
• “For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.” (diversity thesis).
• “And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.” (equality thesis).
• “So, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God” (divinity thesis).
• The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding (procession thesis).

From this analysis, it can be inferred that, the councils formulated Creeds which were intended to provide answers to, some or all of, the following eleven questions about the doctrine of the Trinitarian God:

• (1) What are the things which are many in the Trinity?
• (2) How many individual things are there in the Trinity?
• (3) What is the thing which is one in the Trinity?
• (4) Is the Trinity simultaneously one and three in the same respect at the same time?
• (5) How many distinct centers of willing are there in the Trinity?
• (6) How are the many things in the Trinity distinguished?
• (7) How many Gods are there in the Trinity?
• (8) What are the relations between the three persons of the Trinity?
• (9) What are the attributes of the one thing in the Trinity?
• (10) What are the attributes of the three entities in the Trinity? and
• (11) What are the relations between the three entities and the only one entity in In the Trinity?

With this clarification in mind, let us now look at the logical and metaphysical coherence or otherwise of the answers provided by the councils to these questions.

Logical structure of the Trinity

Based on the ecumenical tradition questions and answers about the Trinity, some philosophers, such as Richard Cartwright (1987) and Dale Tuggy as reported in chapter five of a book compiled by Melville Stewart (2003), have shown that, the Athanasian Creed, defines the doctrine of Trinity in terms of the following logical structure, which the faithful Christians are supposed to accept:

• (1) By its essential nature, the Trinity is God;
• (2) By its essential nature, the Father is God;
• (3) By its essential nature, the Son is God;
• (4) By its essential nature, the Holy Spirit is God;
• (5) By their mutual external relations, the Trinity is not the Father;
• (6) By their mutual external relations, the Father is not the Son;
• (7) By their mutual external relations, the Son is not the Holy Spirit;
• (8) By reason of mutual external relations, the Holy Spirit is not the Father;
• (9) By reason of its essential nature, God is one personal and triune substance;
• (10) The Father is neither made, nor created, nor begotten.
• (11) The Son is from the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten
• (12) The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding.
• (13) What the Father is, such is the Son and such the Holy Spirit.

In short, theologians structure the doctrine of the Trinity along three basic concepts: relation, person, and substance, where the three divine persons are distinguished by four relations of origin, namely:

• Innascibility (not being from anyone) which belongs to the Father;
• Paternity (speaking or generating) which belongs to the Father;
• Filiation (being spoken or generated) which belongs to the Son; and
• Spiration (being sighed) which belongs to the Holy Spirit.

According to the seven ecumenical councils (325-787), this is a set of propositions which is said to represent traditional orthodoxy, biblical faithfulness, and doctrinal harmony, regardless of whether it entails logical incoherence and metaphysical inconsistency or not.

For practical purposes and for the sake of brevity, Richard Cartwright, has abbreviated this structure into a minimum of seven propositions as follows:

• (14) The Father is God
• (15) The Son is God
• (16) The Holy Spirit is God
• (17) The Father is not the Son
• (18) The Father is not the Holy Spirit
• (19) The Son is not the Holy Spirit
• (20) God is one personal and triune substance.

Understanding Trinitarian relations and their roles

The Trinitarian Persons have all the same intrinsic generically divine properties: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, incorporeality, eternity, and everything else it takes to be a supreme being. The Persons are however distinct. And where there is a distinction, there must be a difference. It had to be seen how they can be distinguished (Baber 2019:142).

The starting point was a general philosophical question: What Makes some things different and others identical?

On one hand, it was known that, for any x and y, x is identical to y if x and y are exactly similar with respect to all intrinsic properties. That is, : if x and y have all intrinsic properties in common, then they are identical. On the other hand, if x is not identical to y then x and y are different with respect to some intrinsic property.

Based on this logic, it was hypothesized that, the Trinitarian Persons can and should be extrinsically distinguished by their relations to one other, without touching their intrinsic properties.

Accordingly, various Trinitarian relations, as mentioned above, were formulated by different philosophers in order to explain how God can be one "substance" and three distinct "persons" which share the same substance and yet remain distinct persons.

According to Butakov (2014), the historical formulation of the relations in the Trinity followed two Approaches.

The Greek model of the Trinity, based on the Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, treats the Trinitarian relations as connections between the Father and the two other persons: the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The two relations have to be heteronymous (“generation” and “procession”), and have to be interpreted from the extreme realistic position.

It consists of five elements: three consubstantial persons—the Father (F), the Son (S), and the Holy Spirit (HS),—and two heteronymous relations—generation (G) and procession (P). The divine substance is not an element of the model, since it is the substance of the persons.

Source: Pavel Butakov (2014: 511)​

The Father is the source of it, the Son and the Spirit originate from him, receiving his substance and therefore being the same as he is. The Son is connected to the Father by the relation of generation, and the Spirit by procession. The Father is different from the other two because he is the source, while the Son and the Spirit are different from each other on the basis of their different relations with the source. And there is no relation between the Son and the Spirit.

The Latin Trinitarian model, based on Boethius’ De Trinitate, treats relations as three subsistent persons. The relations have to be unidirectional: from the Father to the Son, and from both of them to the Holy Spirit. Both models are adequate and effective, but incompatible.

It consists of four elements: the divine substance (DS) and three persons—unidirectional relations—the Father (F), the Son (S), and the Holy Spirit (HS).

Source: Pavel Butakov (2014: 509)​

Since the persons are relations, their numerosity does not complicate the divine substance, keeping it one and simple.

The relations are like relation of sameness, making the persons equal to each other, and they are directed from the Father to the Son, and from both of them to the Holy Spirit. Unlike in the model of Gregory, there is only one type of relation; therefore there is no need to give this relation any specific name.

Nevertheless, for confessional matters this relation can be called “procession” while keeping in mind that in this case “procession” is not different from “generation.”

In short, the actual dividing line between Eastern and Western Trinitarian traditions seems to be rooted in their understandings of the Trinitarian relations, whether these are a reality that connects the divine persons, or they are the persons themselves.

Butakov (2014) states that, the two models became two separate paradigms for the later Eastern and Western theological traditions until St. Thomas Aquinas made an attempt to unite both of them into one system in his Summa Theologiae. Aquinas allows for both interpretations of the Trinitarian relations.

On the one hand, he speaks of the “relations of origin” in God (S.T. 1.28.4), which function in the same way as relations in the Gregorian model that bond the persons in pairs.

On the other hand, he also uses the Boethian approach to relations and insists that each person is a “subsisting relation” (S.T. 1.29.4). The combined model is cumbersome and less effective.

There are theological consequences of the differences between the models of Gregory and Boethius. They include the problem of filioque, the question of completeness of the Godhead, and soteriological consequences. Let us look at the problem of filioque.

The problem of filioque has been a stumbling block between the Christian East and
West for over a millennium.

The difference appears in the formulation of the Nicene Creed, which in the East is confessed in the original 381 A.D. form, where the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, while in the West the Creed includes a later addition of one Latin word “filioque” (“and son”), resulting in the Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son.

Generally Eastern theologians claim that the addition of the filioque distorts Trinitarian theology and insist on its removal from the Creed. At the same time the West maintains that the filioque expresses a valuable truth about the Trinity and should not be discarded.

Keeping in mind that the Eastern theological approach is in accordance with the Trinitarian model of Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Western with the model of Boethius, it should be worthwhile to examine how the two models will be affected by the insertion or removal of the filioque. Butakov (2014) has already done this analysis for us.

He says that, in the model of Gregory the relation of procession is the unique bond that ties the Father with the Holy Spirit. An insertion of the filioque will result in that the same relation of procession appears between the Son and the Spirit, since the filioque requires that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

It is clear that the additional relation of procession leads to the confusion of the persons of the Father and of the Son, since both are now connected to the Spirit with the same relation. Therefore, the insertion of the filioque ruins the model of Gregory because it can no longer provide a distinction between the persons.

Also, he shows that, in the model of Boethius the relation of procession is directed from the Father to the Son, and from both of them to the Holy Spirit. If the 381 A.D. Creed is to be interpreted in such a way that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, then procession from the Son to the Spirit has to be removed from the model.

The removal of the relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit from the Boethian model results in the inability to tell the difference between the Son and the Spirit. Thus, the filioque is a crucial part of the model, and its loss will lead to the confusion of the divine persons.

So, the question whether the filioque should or should not be in the Creed depends on the choice of the Trinitarian model, and the decision to change the Creed requires a change of the whole theological paradigm, he concludes.

At this point, there is one point I wish to remind the reader. According to Butakov (2014), most of the Trinitarian relations we have examined are fallible human inventions, not revelations. They are philosophical solutions to the puzzle of the Trinity.

As such we are not absolutely bound to blindly accept them, even at the expense of rational ecumenism. In the extreme case we can simultaneously reject the Boethian and Nazianzus theological paradigms in favor of an alternative and superior theological paradigm, if it can be formulated and defended rationally.

Logical contradictions in the Trinity and their genesis

We have already seen that, a set of propositions is explicitly inconsistent if and only if, at least, one member of the set just is the denial or negation of, at least, one member of the set; that, a set of propositions is formally inconsistent if and only if an explicit contradiction can be derived from its members using only the rules of ordinary logic; and that, a set of propositions is implicitly inconsistent if and only if adding some necessarily true proposition(s) to it yields a formally inconsistent set.

For sure, if the "verb to be" written as "is" in the above propositions, is read in terms of the is-of-identity, the above stated logical structure of the Trinity seems to violate the law of non-contradiction, which states that, X cannot be both X and not-X in the same way and at the same time. The common Trinitarian puzzles of this nature are discussed below.

Modalism puzzle

The modalism puzzle is defined by the following set of four propositions:

• The Father is God,
• The Son is God,
• Thus, the Father is the Son,
• The Father is not the Son.

A similar modalisn puzzle can be constructed by replacing “the Son” with “the Holy Spirit” in the above argument. Thus:

• The Father is God,
• The the Holy Spirit God,
• Thus, the Father is the Holy Spirit,
• The Father is not the Holy Spirit.

According to this puzzle, it appears that, the Father is the Son, and the Father is the Holy Spirit, meaning that, there is one God who serially wears masks labeled with different names, such “the Father” at time t1, “the Son” at time t2, and “the Holy Spirit” at time t3, where each time slice represents one mode of being in a chameleon fashion.

Tritheism puzzle or three-fold polytheism puzzle

The tritheism puzzle is defined by the incoherence of following set of four propositions:

• The Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God,
• Each of the persons is distinct from the other persons,
• Thus, there are three Gods,
• There is exactly one God.

Tetratheism puzzle or four-fold polytheism puzzle

The tetratheism puzzle is defined by the incoherence of following set of four propositions:

• The Trinity is God, the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God,
• The Trinity and each of the persons is distinct from the others,
• Thus, there are four Gods,
• There is exactly one God.

Subordination puzzle

The subordination puzzle is defined by the incoherence of following set of four propositions:

• The Father is the source of the Son,
• The Father is always older than the Son,
• Thus, the Father is not identical to the Son,
• The three persons in the Trinity are identical.

Procession puzzle

The procession puzzle is defined by the incoherence of following set of four propositions:

• God is not begotten.
• The Son is God.
• Thus, the Son is not begotten.
• The Son is begotten.

A similar procession puzzle can be constructed by replacing the term “the Son” with “the Holy Spirit.”

Self-creation puzzle

The following set of propositions contradicts the fundamental ontological truth according to which, nothing can "create" itself, meaning that, nothing can bring itself into existence.

• The Father is God,
• The Son is God,
• The Father is the source of the Son,
• Thus, God creates God.

Divine triunity puzzle

The Athanasian Creed declares that Christians worship “one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity,” thus identifying God with a triune substance or property bearer. This statement implies that: God is triune. Thus, tri-unity is a property included in the divine nature. Then, we have the following inconsistent triad:

• God is triune,
• The Son is not triune,
• Thus, the son is not God,
• The Son is God.

Similar contradictory tetrads can be generated by replacing "The Son" with "The Father" or "The Holy Spirit" in this tetrad. Thus:

• God is triune,
• The Father is not triune,
• Thus, The Father is not God,
• The Son is God.

And:

• God is triune,
• The Holy Spirit is not triune,
• Thus, The Holy Spirit is not God,
• The Son is God.

Metaphysical contradictions

Some puzzles relate to the lack of intelligibility of the doctrine of Trinity by reason of its violation of the law of non-contradiction.

This law states that an entity E cannot have property x and lack property x at the same time and in the same respect. Two puzzles entail the violation of this metaphysical principle, namely perichoresis puzzle and the person-nature puzzle.

Perichoresis puzzle

Although the term “perichoresis” does not appear in the Bible, the reality of perichoretic bonding, perichoretic unity or perichoretic union of the three divine persons is mentioned in a number of scriptural texts.

The most cited verses are: “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30); “The Father is in me and I am in the Father (John 10:38); “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?” (John 14:10); and “I am in the Father and the Father in me. (John 14:11).”

In mathematics, given set x which has n members, there are "2 power n" subsets. In this list of subsets, one of the subsets of set x is identical to set x. Thus, given x=(1,2). The subsets are "2 power 2" which is 4. Thus: s1=(), s2=(1), s3=(2) and s4=(1,2). Here, s1, s2 and s3 are called proper subsets, while s4 is called an improper subset, simply because it is identical to the parent set.

Similarly, in metaphysics, we say that, x is a part of y if and only if x is a proper part of y or x is an improper part of y; and set x is an improper part of y if and only if x is identical with y, that is, if and only if x wholly composes y.

In effect, we have the mereological puzzle by reason of an incoherence in the following set:

• The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is in the Father.
• There is a part-whole relation between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, such that: The Father is a part of the Son, the Son is a part of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father.
• The Son is in the Father, the Holy Spirit is in the Son, and the the Father is in the Holy Spirit.
• There is a part-whole relation between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, such that: The Son is a part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is a part of the Son, and the the Father is a part of the Holy Spirit.
• Each of the three divine persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can not be a proper part of the others;
• Each of the three divine persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is an improper part of the others;
• An improper part is identical to the whole of which it is a part;
• The three divine persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are distinct and not identical.

Person-nature puzzle

This metaphysical puzzle goes as follows: When we count human persons, we count by individual instances of humanity. For example, when Anna, Mary, and Lydia, each instantiates the universal, humanity, and each has proper characteristics such that we don’t confuse them, what we have here are three humans, not a single human.

So likewise, based on the instantiation logic, we ought to say that according to the Athanasian Creed, there should be three gods. The reason is this:

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each instantiates the universal, Godhood, and each has proper characteristics such that we don’t confuse them. In effect, what we have appears to be three Gods, and not a single God. But, the Athanasian creed, inverts this logic by saying, instead, that there is one God, contrary to the observable facts.

This is a metaphysical problem of unintelligibility. Here, God appears to have the cardinality of one and the cardinality of three simultaneously and in the same respect. It is a metaphysical contradiction.

In other words, this puzzle allows us to ask the question: what is the nature of the relation between the Divine Persons and the Divine Nature? For the past 2000 years of Christianity this question remains unanswered.

Strategies for solving the Trinitarian puzzles

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has been a perpetual puzzle for philosophers for centuries, resulting in a plethora of theoretical means for rationalizing the unity of the three divine persons.

Generally, in the above Trinitarian propositions, the verb-to-be, “is”, can be read as the “is of absolute identity,” the “is of relative identity,” the “is of attributionn,” the “is of composition,” "the is of signification," "the is of physical existence," "the is of conceptual existence," or "the is of typification." Let me explain each briefly.

The word "being," and its tense and cardinal variants "is", "was," "are," and "were" as used in everyday speeches, are very ambigous in meaning.

Thus, I shall attempt to present some alternative meanings that may be attached to the word "being" and show how some of these meanings can assist in solving the Trinitarian Puzzles.

(a) Being as Identity: Under the meaning of “being” as identity, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of “being identical with”. For example, Julius is (identical with) Julius, Julius is (identical with) Nyerere. Identity as here referred to is a dyadic relation that relates each entity such as substance or event, to itself and to no other entity. Each substance is identical with itself, regardless of time. If an entity A is identical with an entity B, then there is absolutely no difference between A and B, and whatever is true of A is true of B and vice versa. There is no sense ever in saying that "A is partly identical with B," unless we mean merely that A and B are similar. But if this is what is meant, it would be better to say it explicitly, and not speak in riddles. This first meaning of "to be" is illustrated by the sentence, "Beauty is beauty."

(b) Being as attribution: The second meaning of "to be" is "to have as an attribute." This is the relation of attribution. This meaning is exemplified by the word "is" in the sentence, "The sky is blue." Here we take the meaning of the word "blue" to be the attribute "blueness," so the proposition could also be expressed by the sentence, "The sky has blueness as an attribute." Attribution is the relation of an entity to an attribute which the entity has. Here, the attribute is predicated of a subject. Then, the “is” of attribution does not express an equivalence relation and, in general, “x has P” and “y has P” do not necessarily imply that “x is identical to y.”

(c) Being as composition: The parts are said to compose the whole and the whole is composed of the parts. Thus, composition is the relation between a whole and its parts. Saying that Nyerere’s body is (composed of) skin and bone is not to say that Nyerere’s body is identical to skin and bone. There is skin and bone that do not compose Nyerere. Generally, the statement of the form “A is B” translates into “A is composed of set B.” And, the statement “A is composed of set B” translates into: A compound object A is composed of a set whose n-members are parts known as P1, P2, …, and Pn.

(d) Being as signification: Under the “is” of signification, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of “is a sign of”. For example, this flag is (a sign of) Tanzania, this Cross is (a sign of) Christianity, this cow is (a sign of) God, this bread is (a sign of) my body, this wine is (a sign of) my blood.

(e) Being as physical existence: Under the “is” of physical existence, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of "is physically located in space and time at a definite spacetime address." For example, The sun is, the moon is, Tanzania is, Father Christmas is not located any where in the physical world.

(e) Being as conceptual existence: Under the “is” of conceptual existence, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of "is conceptually located in the physical mind which is resident at a definite spacetime address." For example, Father Christmas is in the mind of Peter.

(g) Being as instantiation: Under the “is” of instantiation, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of "is an instance of". For example, given Anna, Mary, and Lydia, each is an instantance of the universal "humanity," and each has proper characteristics such that we don’t confuse them. So, when we count humans, we count by individual instances of humanity. In effect, what we have here are three instances of humanity, hence three humans, not a single human.

(h) Being as a type/form/state: Under the “is” of typification, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of "is a type of" or "is a kind of" or "is a form of". For example, ice is a form of water, vapor is a form of water.

Thus, the coherence or inconsistency of the comprehensive set of propositions (1)-(13), or the abridged set of propositions (14)–(20), depends on how one interprets the verb-to-be, “is”, in those propositions.

Alternative solutions to Trinitarian puzzles

In recent decades Christian philosophical theology expressed an increased interest in the Trinitarian problem, narrowing it down mainly to the opposition of “social” and “anti-social” approaches.

The foundation of this division lies in the popular strategy of the 20th century to characterize Trinitarian theories either as “Greek” (Eastern) or “Latin” (Western).

By using a minimum of seven propositions from the logical structure of the Trinity, propositions (13)-(19), we saw above, these solutions/models, and a few others, are discussed next:

Latin Trinitarianism Model

The “Latin” model starts from the unity of the Godhead. Therefore it can be characterized as “anti-social,” and the main theoretical problem for it is to justify diversity in this divine unity.

This approach is usually associated with the Latin patristics and scholasticism, and it is prominent in the Western Christian tradition. The model is as follows:

• (1) The Father is God
• (2) The Son is God
• (3) The Holy Spirit is God
• (4) The Father is not the Son
• (5) The Father is not the Holy Spirit
• (6) The Son is not the Holy Spirit
• (7) God is one personal and triune substance.

The logical contradictions inherent in this model are resolved via the following strategy:

• First, we cannot interpret the "is" of (1)-(3) as expressing identity. For if a unique God really were identical with the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, then these three would have to be one and the same Divine Person. This follows from the logic of identity: if a = b and a = c, then b = c. An identity reading of "is" here would force either the heresy that there are three Gods (Tritheism) or the heresy that there is only one Divine Person (Sabellianism)
• Instead we can reformulate (1)-(3) so that the new set reads: The Father is divine; The Son is divine; and The Holy Spirit is divine; which means "the is of predication."
• There is, however, no problem in interpreting the "is" of sentences (4)-(6) as expressing identity. They can be read as saying that the Father is not identical with the Son or with the Holy Spirit and that the Son is not identical with the Holy Spirit.
• And, under (7), God is One, means that God has the cardinality of one, which is a property, and this implies "the is of predication."

The logical contradiction is somehow solved that way. But the metaphysical contradictions we named as the substance-person puzzle and perichoresis puzzle remain.

Dissatisfied with this fact, some theologians and philosophers have sought alternative models . The dominant models are discussed next.

Social Trinity Model

According to the Social Trinity model, the Trinity is considered to be a society of three divine persons, and the main goal of this model is to justify the unity of God. This approach supposedly has its roots in Greek patristic theology, and it is dominant in Eastern Christianity, based on the works of the Cappadocian Fathers, such as Nazianzus. The model is as follows:

• (1) The Father is a part of God
• (2) The Son is a part of God
• (3) The Holy Spirit is a part of God
• (4) The Father is not the same part of God as the Son
• (5) The Father is not the same part of God as the Holy Spirit
• (6) The Son is not the same part of God as the Holy Spirit
• (7) God is one personal and triune substance

According to Social Trinity, God is identical to a community of divine persons. This community is composed of three different personal parts, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In this way Social Trinity completely clears up the most obscure relations in traditional trinitarian theorizing: the relations between the individual persons, and the relations between God and the persons collectively, as God just is the collection of those three.

Again, according to Social Trinity, God is not a person, but a community of persons, a collection or a set of persons. Metaphysically speaking, If God is understood as a community, a collection, a set or state of affairs, but not a substance, then, it follows that, God is, not a concrete entity which can enter into causal relations, but an abstract entity which cannot enter into any causal relation.

What is not a concrete entity is not a person, since a person can enter into causal relations. What is not a person is not divine, not a divinity. Thus, God is not divine. Despite all its strengths, this metaphysical problem seriously threatens and weakens the Social Model of the Trinity, since it appears Biblically non-compliant in so far as a personal monotheistic God is concerned.

Relative Identity Model

This model argues that, it is meaningless to ask whether or not some a and b are “the same”; rather, sameness is relative to a sortal concept. Thus, while it is senseless to ask whether or not Paul and Saul are identical, we can ask whether or not Paul and Saul are the same human, same person, same apostle, same animal, or same being.

The doctrine of the Trinity, then, is construed as the claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God, but are not the same Person. They are “God-identical but Person-distinct”. Thus, we have the model:

• (1) The Father is the same god as God
• (2) The Son is the same god as God
• (3) The Holy Spirit is the same god as God
• (4) The Father is not the same divine person as the Son
• (5) The Father is not the same divine person as the Holy Spirit
• (6) The Son is not the same divine person as the Holy Spirit
• (7) God is one personal and triune substance

This model solves the logical problem too. But the metaphysical contradictions we named as the substance-person puzzle and perichoresis puzzle remain.

Thus, none of these two remedial models is without metaphysical problems (McCall and Rea 2009; Stewart 2003).

Stock-taking: Under the trinitarian dilemma we are faced with metaphysical unintelligibility, logical inconsistency, non-compliance with the Bible and abandonment of the orthodox Tradition.

At this point defenses from mysterianism often set in. Mysterianism is a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans in this world, except until in the world to come.

On this view one hears claims like this: The doctrine is supposed to be a mystery. It shouldn't be intelligible and ought to appear contradictory to our limited minds since we are dealing with the transcendent source of all being.

While many acknowledge that we will eventually encounter our cognitive limits if we think hard about God, they suggest that Christian philosophers should not accept this strategy from members of other religions/denominations defending their distinctive theses about God, Brahman, the Absolute, Nirvana, etc.

But, there is no reason why we should indulge in the thought that our obscurity is laudable, while theirs is not. Thus, in the spirit of rational ecumenism, fresh thoughts should be hunted tirelessly as an alternative to mysterianism.

Discussion, summary and conclusions

Based on this discussion, then, the Problem is essentially that the Trinitarian claims seem inconsistent. There are only four possible responses to the Problem:

Either rejecting orthodoxy statement of the doctrine, or embracing inconsistency, or paraphrasing the doctrine for reconciliation, or paraphrasing the doctrine for revision.

Rejecting orthodoxy statement of the doctrine means that, one recognizes that, some statements on the orthodoxy doctrinal statement are really inconsistent and decides to reject them. This involves rejecting Christian orthodoxy, which risks losing church membership.

For example, to deny (2) is to deny monotheism (“we believe in one God”); to deny (4) is to deny that each of the persons is God; to deny that the Son is God is to commit the Arian heresy, to deny that the Holy Spirit is God is to commit the Macedonian heresy, and to deny that the Father is God is to reject a central tenet of all Abrahamic religions.

For ecumenical reasons we have a duty to go out and argue with those who have rejected the doctrine with a view of showing them the reasonableness of what we believe.

Embracing inconsistency means that, one might say that, the statements of the doctrine of Trinity are really inconsistent but, for some reason, I will accept them anyway. One reason could be offered by saying that while the doctrine is literally contradictory, it non-literally communicates or signifies important theological truths. This, however, is really to reject orthodoxy.

Accepting something known to be a contradiction, for reasons of utility only, is an assault on human rationality and hence a violation of human dignity. Thus, this response is incoherent, and so not a solution to the Problem at all. I do not recommend blind faith.

Paraphrasing the doctrine for revision means that, we revise what is said by producing sentences with different and better contents than the originals. Revising paraphrases are given when some otherwise attractive sentence is false, or at least inconsistent with one’s commitments. The paraphrase is then proposed as a replacement that (a) makes roughly the same claim as the original, (b) has many or all of the original’s attractive features, and (c) is true, or at least consistent with one’s commitments.

Revising paraphrases are intended to be more perspicuous, then, by being more accurate—by being “strictly and literally true,” as philosophers some- times say. I do not believe that there is a reason for the Church to take this route.

And paraphrasing the doctrine for reconciliation means that we preserve what is said by clarifying the contents of the originals, so as to show that the originals do not need to be revised. Reconciling paraphrases are given when one takes some sentence to be true but misleading as to its logical or metaphysical implications.

The paraphrase is intended to clarify those implications. Reconciling paraphrases are meant to be clearer than the originals. In this paper I shall take the route of paraphrasing for reconciliation.

By engaging in paraphrasing the doctrine for reconciliation it can be argued that, the apparent contradictions above can be ironed out by applying different interpretations of the copulas “is” and “are” in statements under the logical structure of the Trinity above.

Under this strategy, three major models of the doctrine of the Trinity have so far emerged in a bid to maintain logical coherence, creedal orthodoxy, and Biblical faithfulness. They were discussed above.

A recommendation

In light of what has been said above concerning the is-of-signification, it follows that, the phrase "is God" can and should be interpreted to read "is a sign of God."

Accordingly, I wish to propose another model of the Trinity for further consideration and polishing by expert theologians and philosophers. I shall here call it "The Signification Trinity Model," which I formulate as follows:

• (1) The Father is a sign of God
• (2) The Son is a sign of God
• (3) The Holy Spirit is a sign of God
• (4) The Father is not identical to the Son
• (5) The Father is not identical to the Holy Spirit
• (6) The Son is not identical to the Holy Spirit
• (7) God is one personal substance

On this view, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are synonymic signifiers with respect to the concept of God. They constitute a triad of divine signifiers, or a trinity of divine signifiers.

Thus, God is not a Trinity. Instead, God is a singular and simple entity, which is associated with a trinity of signifiers called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The three signifiers are divine persons located between angels and God. They are distinct, not identical, and they signify the same thing.

Divinity in the Bible is considered God's Himself, Or it may have reference to a deity other than God. For example, angels in the book of Psalms are considered divine, as spirit beings, in God’s form. Thus, it would follow logically that, the three signifiers (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are divine entities, apart from God.

In effect, I propose to collectively call them a Trinity of Signifiers. Accordingly, the heavenly community would include God, a Trinity of Signifiers, arch-angels, angels, and the like.

This way, the puzzle of mutual indwelling is solved, the problem of person-substance relationship vanishes, wherever the Bible says "X is God" we interpret as saying "X is a sign of God," the Traditional Orthodox of Monotheism is preserved, and the equal divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not questioned.

Also, the puzzles around modalism, insubordination, tritheism, tetratheism, procession, triunity, are simultaneously solved.

Thus, I suggest that, this model can, and should be used, to solve all logical puzzles, metaphysical contradictions, and hence generate a Trinitarian account which is traditionally orthodox and compatible with the Bible.

With this proposal in mind, I call upon the coming synod to exercise her duty of ironing out the metaphysical, logical and Biblical nuances for a more palatable faith in the third millennium.

REFERENCES

1.Thomas McCall and Michael Rea (2009), Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (New York: Oxford University Press).

2. Melville Y. Stewart (2003), The Trinity: East/West Dialogue (Springer, Netherlands: Springer Science Business Media, B.V.)

3. Pavel Butakov (2014), “Relations in the Trinitarian Reality: Two Approaches,” Schole 8 (2): 505-519.

4. H.E. Baber (2019), The Trinity: A Philosophical Investigation (London: SCM Press).

5. Richard Cartwright, “On the Logical Problem of the Trinity.” In Philosophical Essays, 187–200. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987. "On the Logical Problem of the Trinity".

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

HITIMISHO NA MAPENDEKEZO

Papa Francis ameanzisha utafiti mkubwa katika wakati mwafaka. Ni wakati ambapo minyukano ya kiitikadi duniani imepamba moto kwa kiwango ambacho kinalitaka Kanisa Katoliki kujitathmini kwa namna ambayo italiacha imara zaidi katika ti ya mawimbi hayo ya kiitikadi.

Yafaa Kanisa Katoliki litumie fursa hii kufanya tathmini ya itikadi yake katika maeneo yote kuhusiana na mti wa uhalisia kuhusu Mungu, Binadamu, Jamii na Ulimwengu baki.

Yaani, Kanisa lisafishe nyumba yake kwa kufagia, kudeki na kukarabati vyumba vyote vilivyomo katika chujio la itikadi lente vipengele 60 kama lilivyojadiliwa hapo juu.

Na kama majawabu yatakayokusanywa yatafanyiwa kazi, yanaweza kuleta mabadiliko makubwa ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki kutokana na msukumo ulioanzia ndani ya Kanisa lenyewe. Hoja zangu, kipengele kwa kipengele, kuhusiana na vipengele 60 nilivyotaja hapo juu zitawekwa chini ya uzi huu hatua kwa hatua kulingana na kasi ya utafiti itakavyoruhusu.

Hatimaye natarajia kuona Kanisa Jipya baada ya sinodi ya 2023, yaani Kanisa linalofanya mambo yake kirazini, pasipo mikanganyiko ya kimantiki, migongano ya kimetafizikia wala mikanganyiko ya kimaadili.

Kanisa la Kisinodi ni Safari ya Pamoja bila kumwacha mtu yeyote nyuma​

BAADA YA SINODI TUNAHITAJI KANISA LILILO HURU DHIDI YA MIKANGANYIKO YA KIMANTIKI, LISILOFUNGAMANA NA MIGONGANO YA KIMETAFIZIKIA NA LISILOKUMBATIA CHEMBECHEMBE ZA ITIKADI YA UMACHIAVELI KAMA VILE OFFINABUSISM, PATRIARCHY, CLERICALISM, ANATHEMAISM, NA KADHALIKA

Kuhusiana na sinodi ijayo, binafsi, mapendekezo yangu yanazingatia vipengele vilivyoorodheshwa hapo juu, na ni kama ifuatavyo:

Kama mwale wa uhalisia utatua kwenye kioo cha prizimu ya Itikadi ya Ukatoliki baada ya 2023 (Post-2023 Catholicism), basi, natamani kuona kwamba upande wa pili kunatokea miale mchomozo yenye kuonyesha ukweli ufuatao kuhusu Itikadi Mpya ya Ukatoliki baada ya 2023:

1. ADMINISTROLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, kanuni za kuendesha taasisi yenye muundo wa kihierakia, kama vile Kanisa Katoliki lilivyo, zinapaswa kuzingatiwa kila mara, kila wakati na kila taasisi, likiwemo Kanisa Katoliki na taasisi zake zote. Kanuni hizo ni pamoja na span of control, unity of command, vertical separation of powers, accountability, responsibility, na horizontal separation of powers. Kwa sasa, kuna tatizo la kiutawala ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki. Chini ya Papa kuna Maaskofu 5,300; na kuna viongozi 700 wa taasisi mbalimbali za kikanisa, zikiwemo taasisi za Roman Curia, wanaoripoti kwa Papa moja kwa moja. Hii maana yake ni kwamba Papa anaoy span of control ya watu 6,000. Kunahitajika ngazi moja ya kiutawala kati ya Maaskofu na Papa ili kupunguza hii span of control. Ni kwa njia hii usimamizi wa makasisi na maaskofu utaleta kasi na ufanisi wa “safari ya pamoja” ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki. (Dive 2020).

2. ANTHROPOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli, taaluma ya ubinadamu (anthropology) inagawanyika kwenye makundi mawili, ya somatolojia (somatology) na saikolojia (psychology); kwamba, somatolojia ni sayansi inayochunguza tabia za miili ya vitu vyenye uhai na visivyo na uhai; kwamba, somatolojia inagawanyika mara mbili, yaani anatomia inayochunguza muundo wa viungo vya mwili, na fiziolojia inayochunguza utendaji wa viungo vya mwili; kwamba, saikolojia huchunguza king'amuzi cha kibinadamu chenye kuhusisha hazina ya akili na utashi (human mind); kwamba, kuna saikolojia mbashara yenye kutumia mbinu za kisayansi katika utafiti na saikolojia ya kirazini kwa ajili ya kutafsiri taarifa zinazohusu utendaji wa king'amuzi cha kibinadamu; kwamba, kila binadamu amegawanyika katika sehemu kuu mbili zinazotegemeana, mwili wa kifizikia (physical body) na king'amuzi cha kiroho (spiritual mind), sehemu ambazo, kwa pamoja, hufanya kazi kama pande mbili za shilingi zisizoweza kutenganishika katika siku zote za uhai wa binadamu; kwamba kiini cha hadhi ya ubinadamu ni hazina ya akili na utashi aliyo nayo kila mmoja tangu siku mimba yake inapotungwa; kwamba, ni muhimu na lazima tunu chanya ya umoja wa mwili na roho (body-self integralism) kuheshimiwa kila mahali, kila wakati na kika mtu; na kwamba, ni muhimu na lazima tunu hasi ya utengano wa mwili na roho (body-self dualism) kuepukwa kila mahali, kila wakati na kika mtu. Ni maoni yangu kwamba, kwa sasa, sera ya useja wa makasisi na kujikana kwa watawa wa kike inakumbatia tunu hasi ya body-self dualism.

3. AXIOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, zifuatazo ni tunu muhimu kwa kila binadamu: umoja wa mwili na roho, afya, elimu, uhai, ikolojia (mazingira), ofisi zenye utawala bora, uchumi unaojali maslahi ya wote, ndoa, urafiki, haki, ukweli, uwajibikaji, amani, na utajiri.

4. BIOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, uhai wa binadamu kamili unayo hazina ya uwezo wa kuonyesha sifa kuu nane zifuatazo: kujongea, kujisaidia, kupumua, kuzaa, kufa, kuhisi, kupata lishe na kukua (movement, excretion, respiration, reproduction, yielding to death, irritation, nutrition and growth, yaani M.E.R.R.Y.I.N.G.); kwamba, spematozoa sio binadamu mchanga; kwamba na ovamu sio binadamu mchanga; kwamba, uhai wa binadamu kamili huanza tangu siku spermatozoa na ovamu zinapoungana katika tumbo la uzazi; Kwamba, binadamu wote ni viumbehai wenye uhai ualio na hadhi sawa tangu wakiwa tumboni mwa mama zao; Kwamba kila binadamu anayo haki ya kuishi tangu akiwa tumboni mwa mama yake; Kwamba kila binadamu asiye na madhara kwa jirani yake anayo haki ya kuwa huru dhidi ya kifo kinachoweza kusbabishwa na binadamu baki; kwamba, binadamu amevuvumka kutokana na wanyama kama vile sokwe kupitia mchakato wa “natural selection”; kwamba, viumbe hujifunza kuyamudu mazingira yao na mazingira yakajifunza kuvimudu viumbehai kupitia mchakato wa “adaptation,” ambapo kiumbe hujibadilisha taratibu ili kiweze kuhimili mikiki mikiki ya kimazingira; na kwamba, huenda michakato ya “natural selection” na “adaptation” hutokea kwa msaada wa mkono wa Mungu.

5. COSMOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, ulimwengu huu ulizaliwa mabilioni ya miaka iliyopita kwa njia ya mchakato uliohusisha mlipuko mkubwa (big bang theory), ambapo baada ya mlipuko huo mabara, bahari, milima na mabonde vilijitengeneza hatua kwa hatua; na kwamba, huenda, mchakato huu ulihusisha mkono wa Mungu. (Craig and Smith 1995).

6. CRITERIOLOGY (LOGIC): Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, kila hoja iliyokamilika kimantiki yafaa iwe na sehemu zifuatazo madai, msingi wa madai, waranti ya msingi wa madai, kiegamio cha waranti, mkingamo tarajiwa, kibutuzi cha mkingamo tarajiwa, na mipaka ya ukweli unaotetewa katika hoja (claim, ground, warrant, backing, objection, rubuttals, qualifiers); kwamba, hakuna kauli inayoweza kusema ukweli na kukanusha ukweli huo wakati ule ule na katika mazingira yale yale; kwamba, kutengeneza hoja pinde (logical fallacy) kwa makusudi ni kitendo cha kumwabudu Mungu wa Umachiaveli; na kwamba, kutumia lugha yenye kuudhi, kukera na yenye kuambatana na matusi (offensive, insulting, and abusive language, yaani offinabusism) kama mbinu ya kumnyamazisha mleta hoja badala ya kujibu hoja yake, ni kitendo cha kumwabudu Mungu wa Umachiaveli; kwamba, ni kosa la kimantiki kuzalisha hitimisho linaloongelea kanuni za kimaadili kutokana na kanuni za kimaumbile pekee (No-Ought-From-Is Fallacy, yaani NOFI Fallacy). Mara kadhaa nimeshuhudia baadhi ya mapadre wakimwabudu Mungu wa Machiaveli kwa njia ya kutengeneza hoja pinde kwa makusudi; na kushiriki katika mawasiliano yanayoongozwa na itikadi ya offinabusism. Pia, maandiko kadhaa ya Kanisa yanaambatana na NOFI Fallacy pamoja na NIFO Fallacy. Kama muumini makini wa kanuni za criteriology (logic) mwenendo huu umenikwaza kwa miaka 15 sasa. Mapadre waliothibitika kushiriki katika mashambulizi ya moja kwa moja dhidi ya walei kwa kutumia silaha ya “offinabusism” ni Pamoja na Padre Joseph Jenkins wa Washingtom DC, Marekani; Padre Gaudensi Talemwa wa SAUT tawi la Mwanza; Padre Sigfried Ntare Rusimbya wa Seminari Kuu ya Segerea Dar es Salaam; na Padre Ivus Tindyebwa wa Rulenge-Ngara. Padre Jenkins amekuwa anatumia blogu yake kutukana watu badala ya kujenga hoja. Alipoambiwa kuwa "no sex act which is intrinsically closed to life at a biologocal level can be fully open to life simply because it is open to life at the participants' intentional level" majibu yake yalikuwa ni "mwenye mapepo au mwehu", yaani "possessed or bonkers," badala ya kujibu hoja. Na utovu wa maadili wa kina Talemwa, Rusimbya na Ivus ulithibitika zaidi kupitia kundi la Whatsapp liitwalo KATOKE SEMINARY ALUMN mnamo tarehe 10-11 Novemba 2021. Wakijibu hoja kuhusu uovu wa mfumo-kasisi (clericalism) iliyoanzishwa na mwanakundi mmoja aitwaye Newton, walimbatiza majina mabaya zaidi ya kumi. Baadhi ni mwehu, sio mkatoliki, amepoteza mwelekeo, mgonjwa, na majina mengine ya ajabu kama hayo, badala ya kujibu hoja iliyowekwa mezani. Baadaye administrator wa kundi hilo, Evodius Anthony Kashaija, kwa kuzingatia ushauri wa Padre Gaudence Talemwa ambaye pia ni administrator mwenza, alimtoa Newton kwenye kundi hilo kwa sababu tu ya kusanifu hoja yenye kueleza ukweli anaouamini juu ya mfumo-kasisi. Kwa sasa, Evodius Anthony Kashaija ni Mhasibu katika Wizara ya Sheria na Katiba huko Dodoma. Nimeambatanisha kumbukumbu kamili za mjadala wote wa siku hizo mbili hapa chini. Lakini, katika kitako cha ukweli, ni maoni yangu kuwa mapadre hawa wamekuwa makuwadi wa itikadi ya kimachiaveli kwa sababu, katika majadiliano, offinabusism ni mbinu ya kufukuzia lengo zuri la kufanya ushawishi kwa watu baki lakini kwa kutumia mbinu haramu ya kusigina hadhi ya ubindamu wa msemaji mmojawapo. Kama mapadre wataendekeza tabia hii ya offinabusism ni wazi kwamba Kanisa litazidi kumomonyoka. Paroko, Padre au Kasisi mwenye kutumia lugha ya matusi kuwaziba midomo wengine hawezi kupata wafuasi. Kwa hiyo offinabusism ikomeshwe.

7. DEONTOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, haki na majukumu ni kama pande mbili za shilingi zisizotenganishika kamwe; Kamba, haki na majukumu ya kibinadamu vinagusa sekta zote za Maisha ya watu, ikiwa ni pamoja na afya, elimu, ikolojia, ofisi za utawala wa kisiasa, uchumi, jamii, ujinsia, na utamaduni. Kanisa limekuwa na utamaduni wa kuepuka kuongelea haki za kijinsia. Hata waandishi maarufu kuhusu Mitazamo ya Maaskofu wa Afrika juu ya Haki za bindamu, kama vile Padre Stanslaus Muyebe na Padre Alex Muyebe, wamekuwa wanakwepa kabisa kujadili topiki ya haki za kijinsia. Katika suala hili, ninaona kwamba, Kanisa linasumbuliwa na tatizo la mchakato wa “scotosis” anaouongelea Lonergan (1956:91). Katika mchakato huu kuna mchujo wa makusudi wa taarifa ili kuficha au kuepuka maarifa ya aina fulani kwa makusudi. Matokeo yake ni upofu fulani, tuseme “colour blindness,” kiasi kwamba Kanisa haliwezi tena kuona haki za kijinsia. Kwa mujibu wa Lonergan, hitimisho hili ni tatizo linaloitwa “scotoma”. Yafaa wanazuoi wa Kanisa tuepuke “scotosis” na “scotoma” kadiri suala la kutafiti na kujadili haki za kijinsia zinavyohusika.

8. ECCLESIOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, mfumo wa maamuzi ndani ya Kanisa unapaswa kujumuisha watu wote waliobatizwa bila kujali kama mhusika analo daraja la ukasisi au ni mlei asiye na daraja hilo; kwamba uwezo wa kuamua masuala ya kikanisa hautokani na mtu kupewa daraja la upadre, bali maandalizi yanayompa mtu weledi katika sekta husika ya kimaisha, bila kujali kama ni kasisi au hapana; na kwamba, kuendelea na utaratibu wa sasa wa kuwanyima walei fursa za kufanya maamuzi ndani ya kanisa lao ni kukiuka kanuni ya usawa wa kirazini walio nao binadamu wote. Kwa sasa, ndani ya Kanisa hakuna kikao chochote cha Kikanisa ambako walei wanayo haki ya kufanya maamuzi (deliberation), zaidi ya kupewa haki ya kutoa ushauri (consultation) makasisi. Utaratibu huu wenye kuendekeza mfumo-kasisi (clericalism) unakiuka usawa wa hadhi ya ubindamu. Dosari zake ni sawa na dosari zilizomo katika mfumo-dume (patriarchy), mfumo-jike (matriarchy), na mifumo kama hiyo. Katika kikonyo cha ukweli, clericalism, patriarchy, na matriarchy ni mifumo ya kimachiaveli kwa sababu inafukuzia malengo mazuri kwa kutumia mbinu haramu ya kusigina hadhi ya ubindamu wa wale wanaobaguliwa katika mifumo hii.

9. ECOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, kila binadamu ni sehemu ya mifumo ya kiikolojia iliyoko duniani, yenye kuunganishwa Pamoja kwa njia ya mizunguko ya bayojiokemia (biogeochemical cycles); kwamba, mizunguko ya bayojiokemia huunganisha uliwemngu wa viumbe hai (biotics) na ulimwengu wa viumbe visivyo hai (abiotics), katika namna ambayo huvisaidia viumbehai kupata elementi muhimu kutoka kwenye ulimwengu baki; kwamba, elementi muhimu zinazohitajika kwa ajili ya makuzi ya viumbe hai na ambazo hutoka kwenye ulimwengu wa vitu visivyo hai, kuingia na kisha kutoka kwenye miili ya viumbe hai kwa kupitia miduara ya bayojiokemia ni pamoja na kaboni, haidrojeni, oksijeni, naitrojeni, fosiforasi, chuma, salfa, ayodini, potasiam, magneziam, na Zinki; kwamba, kwa sababu ya elementi zinazobebwa na miduara ya bayojiokemia, utambuliko halisi wa miili ya binadamu unatokana na mifumo mikongwe ya kiikolojia iliyopo tangu miaka bilioni 15 iliyopita; kwamba, kupitia mfumo wa kiikolojia hapa duniani, vitu hai na visivyo hai vimefungamana na vinategemeana katika kila hatua, kubwa na ndogo; kwamba, katika mfumo huu binadamu na viumbe hai baki wanaunganishwa na asidinasaba (DNA) moja ya uhai; kwamba binadamu hawezi kuishi nje ya historia ya dunia yake wala hawezi kutengeneza maisha mapya nje ya dunia hii; na kwamba kwa ajili ya kufanikisha maendeleo endelevu lazima kila hatua tunayopiga iambatane na utekelezaji wa jukumu la kuviwekea akiba ya kimazingira vizazi vijavyo.

10. ECONOMIOLOGY (ECONOMICS): Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, uchumi ni mfumo unaojumuisha mambo makuu manne, yaani michakato ya kiuchumi, kanuni za kuratibu uchumi, tunu za kijamii, na mfumo wa haki na majukumu ya kiuchumi (economic processes, organizing principles, social values, and economic justice); kwamba, kuna michakato mikubwa mitano katika sekta ya uchumi wa mahali popote duniani, kwa maana ya uzalishaji, usambazaji, mauziano, utumiaji wa huduma na bidhaa, na uwekezaji (production, distribution, exchange, consumption and investment); kwamba, kuna kanuni kuu tatu zinazotumika kuratibu michakato ya kiuchumi, kwa maana ya ushindani, ushirikiano, na uingiliaji kati kupitia mkono wa serikali ili kusimamia utulivu wa soko (competition, cooperation, and intervention); kwamba, kanuni ya ushindani inao msingi wake katika tunu ya kijamii iitwayo uhuru (freedom), kanuni ya ushirikiano inao msingi wake katika tunu ya kijamii iitwayo mshikamano (solidarity), na kanuni ya uingiliaji kati ina msingi wake katika tunu ya usawa (equality); kwamba, tunu ya uhuru inalindwa kupitia kanuni ya usawa katika michakato (procedural justice), tunu ya mshikamano inalindwa kupitia kanuni ya haki sawa katika kuchangia kapu la kodi ya Taifa (contributive justice), na tunu ya usawa inalindwa kupitia kanuni ya haki sawa katika kugawana kilichomo katika kapu la kodi ya Taifa (distributive justice); kwamba, uhuru wa kiuchumi, katika mipaka ya sheria, huleta utengamavu na tija; kwamba, ushindani wa soko, katika mipaka ya sheria, huleta ushirikiano ndani ya jamii; kwamba, hadhi ya ubinadamu inakubaliana na mabadilishano ya bidhaa na huduma yanayofanyika kwa amani, uhuru na bila ujanja, wizi wala kuvunja mikataba; kwamba, kumiliki mali binafsi ni jambo jema; na kwamba, kila binadamu anao uwezo wa kutumia talanta zake kufanya kazi kwa bidii na hatimaye kuzalisha mali kwa ajili yake na majirani zake.

11. EPISTEMOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, maarifa ni sentensi yenye kiima na kiarifa, yenye kuaminiwa na mtu fulani, ambapo sentensi hiyo inataja ukweli na ukweli wake umethibitishwa kwa kiwango kinachoifanya sentensi hiyi iaminike (justified true belief); maarifa yanaweza kupatikana kwa njia kama vile milango mitano ya fahamu (empiricism), yaani kuona, kusikia, kunusa, kugusa, kulamba; udadavuzi wa kimantiki hadi kufikia hitimisho lenye kuaminika kwa kuanzia kwenye umoja kwenda kwenye wingi (inductive rationalism); udadavuzi wa kimantiki hadi kufikia hitimisho lenye kuaminika kwa kuanzia kwenye wingi kwenda kwenye umoja (deductive rationalism); ushuhuda wa mtu mwingine maarufu mwenye busara kwa sababu ya kuyajua mapokeo (authority); maarifa yanayomfikia mtu binafsi kwa njia ya uvuvio binafsi (intuition); na maarifa yanayomfikia mtu binafsi kwa njia ya ndoto (revealation); kwamba, kila mfereji wa maarifa unazo faida na hasara zake; na kwamba, kazi ya umisionari unapaswa kuhusisha mafunzo juu ya vigezo vya kutofautisha ukweli na uwongo.

12. ESCHATOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, lugha inayotumika kuongelea mwishoni wa dunia hii na ujio wa dunia mpya ni lugha ya picha; kwamba, hii lugha ya kieskatolojia hutumia mbinu mbili kwa mpigo, yaani, ufananisho na ukinzani kati ya hali mbaya ya sasa na hali nzuri ya baadaye; kwamba, wakati katika dunia ya leo kuna mateso, njaa, kiu na kifo, katika dunia mpya mambo haya hayatakuwepo; kwamba, lugha ya kiestakotolojia hutumia mifano kutokana na maisha ya kila siku ya watu ili kuwaondolea hofu na kuwapa matumaini; na kwamba, kukoma kwa mbingu na nchi ya sasa na kisha ujio wa mbingu na nchi mpya unapaswa kutafsiriwa kitamathali kimaanisha safari ya kuondoka kwenye maisha duni kwenda kwenye maisha bora.

13. ETHICOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, malengo mema yanapaswa kufukuziwa kwa kutumia mbinu njema na sio kwa kutumia mbinu haramu; kwamba, wakati sheria kongwe ya madili asilia (old natural law) inaruhusu hitimisho lenye muundo wa kanuni ya kimaadili kuzalishwa kutokana na kanuni ya kimaumbile pekee; sheria mamboleo ya madili asilia (new natural law) inakataza hitimisho lenye muundo wa kanuni ya kimaadili kuzalishwa kutokana na kanuni ya kimaumbile pekee; na kwamba, katika suala hili, mamlaka kuu ya Kanisa inaona kwamba sheria kongwe ya madili asilia inakosea wakati sheria mamboleo ya madili asilia iko sahihi. Ukimya wa sasa unaendelea kuliweka Kanisa kwenye ukanda wa mashaka ya kimaadili.

14. ETIOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, katika ulimwengu wa sababu na matokeo, tukio ‘c’ litakuwa limesababisha tukio ‘e’ endapo tukio ‘c’ ni jamii ya matukio ‘C’, tukio e ni jamii ya matukio E, tukio ‘c’ limetokea kabla ya tukio ‘e’, tukio ‘c’ na tukio ‘e’ yametokea katika eneo moja, na kihistoria jamii ya matukio ‘C’ huwa yanasababisha jamii ya matukio ‘E’ (regularity definition); Kwamba, tukio ‘c’ litakuwa limesababisha tukio e endapo tukio ‘c’ limetokea kabla ya tukio ‘e’, tukio ‘c’ na tukio ‘e’ yametokea katika eneo moja, na katika mazingira yenye parammeta zinazounda seti ‘K’, yamkini ya tukio ‘c’ baada ya tukio e kujiri ni kubwa kuliko yamkini ya tukio ‘c’ bila tukio ‘e’ kujiri (probability definition); kwamba, tukio ‘c’ litakuwa limesababisha tukio ‘e’ endapo tukio ‘c’ na tukio ‘e’ ni matukio ambayo yamefungamanishwa na mnyororo wa sababu na matokeo kiasi kwamba tukio ‘c’ ni pingili ya kwanza katika mnyororo huo wakati tukio ‘e’ ni pingili ya mwisho (process definition); Kwamba, tukio ‘c’ linaweza kusababisha tukio ‘e’ endapo kama tukio ‘c’ likitokea, basi tukio ‘e’ litatokea, na endapo tukio ‘c’ halitokei, basi hata tukio ‘e’ halitatokea (counterfactual definition); na kwamba, fenomena kama vile kuomba dua, kufanya sala ya mageuzi (transubstantiation), kufanya maombi, kufanya maombezi, na kuripoti matukio ya kimiujiza ambayo hayawezi kuelezwa kwa kutumia kanuni za kietiolojia zilizojadiliwa hapa, kwa sehemu kubwa, ni fenomena za kijamii zinazoongozwa na kanuni za maigizo ya kitamthiliya (fictionalism) zaidi kuliko kanuni zinazoratibu mifumo halisi ya sababu na matokeo.

15. HISTORIOLOGY (HISTORY): Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, historia hutufundisha kuhusu tulikotoka, tulipo katika wakati wa sasa, kutuonyesha tunakokwenda, na kutuwezesha kuamua tunakopaswa kwenda, kulingana na majumuisho ya vekta za kihistoria; na kwamba, vekta za kihistoria zinaonyesha kwamba, safari ya wanadamu inaanzia kwenye matatizo kuelekea kwenye majawabu, kwa msaada wa mipango thabiti, utekelezaji wa mipango hiyo, na tathmini ya mara kwa mara ya utekelezaji huo; na kwamba, katika mchakato huu, binadamu hutumia akili na utashi kuamua juu ya hatma yake.

16. JURISIOLOGY (JURISPRUDENCE): Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, lengo la kutunga sheria ni kwa ajili ya kuwasaidia wananchi kuishi katika jamii yenye usalama, amani na utulivu kwa kuhakikisha kwamba watu watakatifu (innocent) wanalindwa na wakosefu (guilty) wanaadhibiwa; kwamba, kuna undugu wa karibu kati ya sheria za bunge na sheria za maadili kwa sababu sheria za bunge ni kanuni zinazotokana na sheria ya maadili asilia kuhusu mema na mabaya zilizoandikwa katika moyo wa kila mtu; kwamba, sheria zote lazima zitangazwe kabla ya utekelezaji wake ili watu wajue nini kinaruhusiwa na kipi kinakatazwa; kwamba, sheria hazipaswi kutumika kuadhibu makosa yaliyotendeka kabla hazijatungwa; kwamba, sheria zinapaswa kuandikwa bila kuacha utata kwa wasomaji; kwamba, sheria zinapaswa kuandikwa katika namna inayoondoa mgongano kati yake; kwamba, sheria lazima ziwe zinaweza kufuatwa na wananchi kwa urahisi; kwamba, sheria hazipaswi kubalishwa mara kwa mara kiasi cha kuwanyima nafasi wananchi kuzielewa na kuzifuata; na kwamba, mamlaka ya nchi inapaswa kusimamia sheria zilizotungwa kihalali na Bunge.

17. MATRIMONIOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, kila ndoa inajumuisha, sio tunu mbili za umoja na uzazi pekee, bali tunu tatu, yaani tunu ya umoja wa mke na mume, tunu ya uzazi wa watoto na tunu ya utulivu wa kimwili na kiriho (unitive, procreative and integrative goods); Kwamba, kuzaa watoto kwa kuzingatia kasi ya uzazi (birth rate) inayoleta furaha na amani kwa watoto na wazazi ni lengo zuri kimaadili, japo mbinu za kufanikisha lengo hili zaweza kuwa halali au haramu kimaadili, kulingana na wahusika pamoja na mbinu itakayotumika kuzuia ujio wa mimba isiyotakiwa kwa mujibu wa kasi ya uzazi iliyochaguliwa na wazazi; Kwamba, ndani ya ndoa kama taasisi ya umoja na uzazi (marriage as a unitive and procreative society), kitendo cha kuzuia ujio wa mimba isiyotakiwa kwa mujibu wa kasi ya uzazi iliyochaguliwa na wazazi ni haramu kila wakati na kila mahali; Kwamba, ndani ya ndoa kama taasisi ya umoja, uzazi na utimilifu (marriage as a unitive, procreative and integrative society), kitendo cha kuzuia ujio wa mimba isiyotakiwa kwa mujibu wa kasi ya uzazi iliyochaguliwa na wazazi sio haramu kila wakati na kila mahali; Kwamba, ndani ya ndoa kama taasisi iliyozaliwa kutokana na mabadilishano ya haki za kimwili yaliyofanyika kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya zawadi, basi, kuna mahusiano yasiyoweza kutenganishika kimaadili kati ya tunu za umoja, uzazi na utimilifu, hadi kifo kinapowatenganisha wanandoa.

18. ONTOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, msingi wa kimetafizikia wa mafundisho ya Kanisa kuhusu vitu visivyoonekana wala kugusika (abstract objects) kama vile mbingu, jehanamu, Malaika, Mungu, na shetani, ni fictionalism, au conceptualism, au nominalism, lakini sio realism;

19. PHYSICOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, dunia ni ulimwengu wa kimakanika (mechanistic system) unaoongozwa na kanuni za fizikia, kemia na bayolojia pekee; Kwamba, kauli juu ya vitu vinavyoweza kuthibitishwa kwa njia ya milango ya fahamu yafaa zithibitishwe kwa njia ya utafiti badala ya kusikiliza misahafu innasemaje, kwani tayari tunajua ina dosari tangu enzi za Galileo; Kwamba, sayari, nyota na mwezi havisukumwi na Mungu kama Biblia inavyosema, na badala yake vinazunguka kwa kuongozwa na kanuni za fizikia, na hasa Kanuni ya Tatu ya Mwendo kwa mujibu wa Newton; Kwamba, Kanuni ya Tatu ya Mwendo kwa mujibu wa Newton imeweka msingi wa kutofautisha kati ya sababu za kihistoria (efficient cause) na sababu za kiteliolojia (final cause), kwani, sayansi haiwezi kubaini sababu za kiteliolojia ambazo zinaanzia kwenye kichwa cha mwamuzi asiyeweza kuonekana popote; Kwamba, sio dunia wala jua ambacho ni kitovu cha ulimwengu kwa sababu ulimwengu ni kama tufe kubwe lenye uwazi na ambalo kipenyo chake kinaongezeka kila siku, ndani mwake kukiwa na makundi nyota (galaxies) yapatayo milioni 30, ambapo sayari ya dunia ni sehemu ya kundi nyota mojawapo linaloitwa "kundi nyota lenye rangi ya maziwa" (Milky Way).

20. POLITOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli Kwamba, katika jamii za kidemokrasia, utofauti wa itikadi mtambuka zinazopatikana katika jamii husika ni jambo la kudumu; Kwamba, katika jamii za kidemokrasia utiifu wa jumla kwa fundisho moja la kidini, kifalsafa, au maadili unaweza tu kupatikana kupitia matumizi ya mabavu ya kiserikali; Kwamba, katika jamii za kidemokrasia, utawala unaodumu na ulio salama, usiogawanyika katika matabaka ya kijamii yenye uadui kwa sababu ya mafundisho yenye kupingana, lazima uungwe mkono kwa hiari na angalau idadi kubwa ya raia wake; kwamba, katika jamii za kidemokrasia, tunahitaji mwafaka wa kitaifa wenye kuunganisha itikadi mtambuka zilizopo (the overlapping consensus of reasonable comprehensive doctrines in a pluralistic society) ili mwafaka huo uwe msingi wa haki ya kijamii katika Taifa; Kwamba, katika jamii za kidemokrasia, wananchi wanaojihusisha na shughuli za kisiasa wana wajibu wa kufuata ustaarabu wa kuhalalisha maamuzi yao kuhusu masuala ya kimsingi ya kisiasa kwa kuzingatia tunu na kanuni za pamoja kuhusu mijadala ya umma; na kwamba, katika jamii za kidemokrasia, kwa sababu mbalimbali, haiwezekani kwamba mijadala ya kimantiki peke mara zote italeta mwafaka wa kitaifa juu ya masuala muhimu ya kimaadili, kidini na kifalsafa, kiasi kwamba, makubaliano hayo yanapaswa kupatikana tu kwa msaada wa matumizi ya mabavu ya kiserikali; kwamba, kazi ya serikali ni kusimamia maslahi ya pamoja katika Taifa; kwamba, njia bora ya kuendesha taifa la kidemokrasia ni kutenganisha madaraka ya Bunge, Mahakama, na Serikali, kiasi kwamba, hakuna mhimili wenye uwezo wa kuuburuza mhimili mwingine; kwamba, kanuni ya demokrasia isemayo kwamba “wengi wape, wachache wasikilize,” inapaswa kuwekewa mipaka kwa ajili ya kudhibiti uwezekano wa wingi wa wapiga kura kumeza ubora sera za kitaifa; kwamba, katika Taifa la kidemokrasia ambako kuna utitiri wa itikadi za kidini, njia salama ya kudumisha umoja wa kitaifa ni kutenganisha taasisi za kidini na shughuli za kidola, kwa kiwango ambacho kinatoa nafasi kwa Taifa kuwa na “majukwaa ya umma” (public reason squares) ambako kila mtu anaweza kuingia, akakutana na wenzake, wakiwa wanajiona na kuonekana kama watu wa Taifa moja; kwamba, “majukwaa ya umma” yanayopendekezwa ni pamoja na mashule, vyuo vya elimu ya juu, vyombo vya habari vya serikali, na maofisi yanayotumiwa na watumishi wa umma wapatao 500,000; na kwamba, katika “majukwaa ya umma” itikadi ya kitaifa, yenye msingi wake katika sheria asilia ya maadili (natural moral law), kama inavyotafsiriwa na vyombo vya dola vyenye weledi stahiki, inapaswa kufundishwa kila siku na kwa kila mtu bila kuchoka; kwamba, sare za wanafunzi wa shule za awali, msingi na sekondaru ni nyenzo muhimu kwa ajili ya kujenga Utaifa miongoni mwa kizazi kichanga; kwamba, shule zinazomilikiwa na taasisi za dini kwa ajili ya kuandaa makuhani, mashehe na viongozi wengine kama hao hazipaswi kuhesabiwa kama “majukwaa ya umma,” kwani zinakuwa na malengo maalum ya kitaasisi.

21. PRAXIOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, kwa mujibu wa mtindo wake wa utendaji kazi, matukio kama vile ibada, kusali rozari na kukutana kwenye jumuiya ndogo ndogo za Kikristo yanapaswa kuakisi kwa ukamilifu itikadi ya Kanisa kama ilivyojadiliwa kwenye mapendekezo haya hapa; kwamba, matendo ya rozari yanapaswa kuongelea haki za kisiasa, kiuchumi, kijamii, kielimu, kiafya, kijinsia, na kimazingira badala ya kurudia rudia sala na kujadili historia Mashariki ya Kati bila kuonyesha uhusiano wake na Kanisa mahalia; kwamba, kalenda ya masomo ya Kanisani (liturgical calendar) inapaswa kupangiliwe kwa kuzingatia mgawanyo wa haki za kisiasa, kiuchumi, kijamii, kielimu, kiafya, kijinsia, na kimazingira badala ya kurudia rudia sala na kujadili historia ya Mashariki ya Kati bila kuonyesha uhusiano wake na Kanisa mahalia; na kwamba, mfumo wa utendaji kazi wa Jumuiya Ndogo Ndogo za Kikristo unapaswa kupangiliwe katika namna ambayo inawaruhusu waumini kujadili changamoto za maisha yao kulingana na haki za kisiasa, kiuchumi, kijamii, kielimu, kiafya, kijinsia, na kimazingira badala ya kurudia rudia sala na kujadili historia ya Mashariki ya Kati bila kuonyesha uhusiano wake na Kanisa mahalia;

22. PSYCHOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, king'amuzi cha kibinadamu (human mind) ni roho inayojidhihirisha katika umbo la akili na utashi, mithili ya akili na utashi vilivyoko katika king'amuzi cha ki-Mungu (divine mind), ambaye ni mfano asilia wa uperisona wa kibinadamu.

23. SACRAMENTOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, kuna sakramenti nane zifuatazo: ubatizo, kitubio, ekaristi, kipaimara, mpako wa wagonjwa, ndoa, upadirisho, na sakramenti ya kazi; kwamba, sakramenti ya kazi ni nyenzo muhimu kwa ajili ya kuliweka Kanisa karibu zaidi na wavujajasho wanaojaribu kumfuata kwa vitendo Kristo Mfanyakazi; na kwamba, sherehe za kisakramenti zinapaswa kufanyika katika namna ambayo inaashiria kumbukizi ya kazi za Yesu Kristo, badala ya kuziendesha kana kwamba ni matukio ya kimiujiza ambako, kwa hakika kanuni za kietiolojia zinawaruhusu wanadamu kuongea na Mungu, Malaika na watakatiifu.

24. SEXOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, kwa mujibu wa anatomia katika ngazi ya jenitalia, watu wote duniani ama ni wanaume, wanawake, au mahunta; kwamba, kwa mujibu wa sumaku ya kijinsia watu wote duniani wanagawanyika katika makundi matatu ya heterofilia, homofilia na ambifilia; kwamba, tendo la ngono ambalo milango yake ya kukaribisha uhai katika ngazi ya kifiziolojia imejifunga, na wahusika wanajua hivyo, haliwezi kuhesabika kama tendo ambalo ni rafiki wa uhai kwa sababu tu kwamba milango yake ya kukaribisha uhai katika ngazi ya dhamira iko wazi (a genital-to-genital coital activity which is known by participants to be intrinsically closed to life, at least partially, at a physiological level cannot be fully open to life simply because it is partially open to life at an intentional level); na kwamba, kuna ufanano mkubwa kati ya wanaume na wanawake, kuliko utofauti uliopo kati yao;

25. SOCIOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, jamii ya wanadamu hustawi na kutekeleza majukumu yake vizuri zaidi kama ikikubali na kuenzi ukweli ufuatao: kwamba kila taasisi za kijamii kama vile familia, dini na dola, ni kama tufe la himaya huru, lenye haki ya kujitawala bila kuingiliwa wala kuingilia haki za kujitawala za matufe baki; kwamba, familia ya baba, mama, watoto (BMW) ndio kikonyo cha maisha ya jamii yenye amani; na kwamba, maamuzi ya kutatua matatizo hufanyika vizuri zaidi kama yakifanyika karibu zaidi na watu au mahali ambako tatizo husika limezaliwa.

26. THANATOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, kitendawili cha kifo ni kama mti wenye matawi mengi; kwamba, kitendawili cha kifo huambatana na changamoto za kisaikolojia, ambapo wafiwa huhuzunika na kutaharuki; kwamba, kitendawili cha kifo huambatana na changamoto za kisheria kuhusu haki ya maiti kuzikwa kwa heshima stahiki, watu wenye jukumu la kuzika mwili wa marehemu, na haki za warithi wa mali za marehemu; kwamba, kitendawili cha kifo huambatana na changamoto za kibayolojia kuhusiana na fasili ya kitabibu ya kifo, sababu za kifo cha marehemu, na michakato ya kibayojikemia itakayofuata mara tu baada ya mwili kuzikwa kaburini; kwamba, kitendawili cha kifo huambatana na changamoto za kiteolojia na kimaadili, kuhusiana na tabia za marehemu wakati wa uhai wake, uwezekano wa roho yake kwenda mbinguni au kwenda jehanamu, ambapo swali kuhusu mbingu na jehanami ni wapi huweza kuibuka; kwamba, kitendawili cha kifo huambatana na changamoto za kiuchumi na kijamii kuhusiana na uendeshaji wa msiba; kwamba, kitendawili cha kifo huambatana na changamoto za kimetafizikia kuhusu swali la kifo ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani, ambapo wakati wa mazishi na katika kipindi cha msiba ni majira mwafaka ya kutafuta jawabu kwa swali hili; na kwamba, ni kazi ya Kanisa kusaidiana na wafiwa kutatua changamoto hizi zote.

27. THEOLOGY: Kwamba kuna Kanisa linalotambua, kufundisha na kusisitiza ukweli kwamba, Kanuni ya Imani ya Mitume, Kanuni ya Imani ya Nikea, Kanuni ya Imani ya Constantinopoli, na Kanuni ya Imani ya Mt. Athanazi, kila moja kwa namna yake, inafundisha kwa mpigo kwamba “Mungu ni mmoja” na kwamba “Miungu ni wanne,” jambo ambalo linamaanisha mkanganyiko wa kimantiki unaobatilisha teolojia ya Mungu ambayo tunaiimba kila siku wakati wa Misa; kwamba, mkanganyiko katika mafundisho ya kiteolojia kuhusu Mungu unamaanisha kwamba hayo ni mafundisho ya uwongo, kwa kuwa ndani ya Mungu hakupaswi kuwa na mkanganyiko; na kwamba, dhana ya Mungu tuliyo nayo Wakatoliki ni dhana iliyo tofauti na dhana za Mungu walizo nazo Madhehebu kama vile Waanglikana, Walutheri, na Wasabato, kiasi kwamba, katika mazoea madhehebu haya yanaabudu miungu tofauti; kwamba, teolojia ya mahusiano yanayopaswa kuwepo kati ya madhehebu ya kidini na dola inapaswa kuongozwa na ukweli kwamba kila dhehebu linamwabudu Mungu wake.

 

[love life live life]

Hiyo ni dhahiri wala sio kuhukumiana. Yaani unaishi na mwenzako bila ndoa, na kufunga ndoa ni bure kabisa, labda nauli tu ya kwenda kanisani, halafu unataka watu wakuone kama Mkristu mwenzao? Unaambiwa nenda kafunge ndoa hutaki, usipopewa huduma unalalamika! Nenda leo, kila siku Jumatatu hadi Jumamosi kuna misa za asubuhi, na ukitaka ndoa itafungwa tu, acha visingizio, ukikataa basi jiandae kuzikwa na wapagani

Kufunga ndoa ni bure????
Huwa tunaomba risiti kwanza ya michango hata ubatizo
ni hivo pia!

 

[Jacobus]

Maoni yangu: Kristu na Kristo ni majina mawili, yanayoweza kurejea vitu viwili tofauti au kitu kile kile kimoja.

Endapo majina X na Y yanarejea kitu kimoja Z basi jina X ni kisawe cha jina Y, kwani majina yote mawili yanarejea kitu kile kile, na kinyume chake ni kweli.

Kwa kimombo: X and Y are identical if and only if X refers to the same thing Z as Y does, and vice versa.

Kwa hiyo najiuliza: unataka kusema kuwa Kristo na Kristu ni majina ya vitu viwili tofauti?

Kama jawabu lako ni ndiyo, unamaanisha kuwa Kristu Mkatoliki sio Kristo Mpentekoste?

Swali lako halijajipambanua vya kutosha.

Hebu lipambanue ili mjadala usonge mbele kwa uhakika.

Tumsifu Yesu KristU.

"THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Before 1517, every Christian was Catholic.

As such, today we know that:

If you are Lutheran then your Church was founded by Fr Martin Luther in Germany in 1517.

If you are Menonite, your Church was founded by Grebel, Mantz and Blaurock, in 1525.

If you are Anglican, then your Church was founded by King Henry XIII in 1534.

If you are a Presbyterian, then your Church was founded by John Knox in 1560.

If you are a Congregationalist, then your Church was founded by Robert Brown, in Holland in 1583.

If you are Baptist, then your Church was founded by John Smith in Amsterdam, in 1606.

If you are a Methodist, then your Church was founded by John Murray in New Jersey, in 1770.

If you are a Mormon or Latter Day Saint, then your church was founded by Joseph Smith in New York, in 1829.

If you are a Seven Day Adventist, your Church was founded by William Miller in 1831.

If you are Salvation Army, then know that your Church was founded by William Booth in 1865.

If you are Jehovah Witness, then know that your Church was founded by Charles Russell in 1872.

We can go on and on...

APART FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, EVERY OTHER ECCLESIA ASSEMBLY (CHURCH) WAS FOUNDED BY A HUMAN BEING. WE WERE FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF (Matthew 16:18), BEGINNING WITH THAT OFFICIAL GATHERING AT PENTECOST (Acts 2:1) AND LED BY 266 SUCCESSORS OF SAINT PETER.

I have listed these not to denigrate anyone but just to set the records straight.
The Catholic Church has remained where it has been since Christ instituted the Eucharist, called the Last Supper.
We continue to do over and over what He commanded when He uttered those holy words over the bread and cup, take and eat, take and drink and ordered them to do this in His Memory
until He comes again (Mt. 26:26).

The word CATHOLIC means UNIVERSALITY.

THIS IS WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE REPRESENT. Spread the Good News."
Mkuu, utakubaliana nami kuwa mti wa ubuyu huanza kama mchicha. Hapa namaanisha kuwa kuna viashiria vidogo vidogo ambavo vimeachiwa na uongozi mpaka sasa inaonekana ni ajabu kuvifanya.
Mfano:-
1. Utaratibu wa ukaaji Kanisani. Pana pande mbili tu kwa maana ya upande wa kiume na wa kike. Hii inatengwa na njia ya katikati ndani ya Kanisa. Sasahivi utakuta baadhi ya makanisa ni kama holi au ukumbi wa sinema. Kwa makusudi mwanaume au mwanamke atakwenda upande sio wake tena kwa kulazimisha ilhali upande wake pana nafasi.
2. Utofauti wa sala. Tanzania tuna baraza letu la Maaskofu Katoliki (TEC), sasa sikiliza kinachosikitisha ni baadhi ya mahalia utasikia utofauti wa sala.
Mfano:-
1. Sala ya Imani, pana baadhi hawatamki .... la Roma. Kanuni ya Imani, ndani ya Kanisa panaachwa ....siku ya tatu akafufuka katika wafu. Hii nimetafuta kwa Kilatini nione kama Vatican wamebadirisha, sijaona badiliko lolote. Vile vile sala ya Tunakimbilia, Sala ya MT Inyasi na kadhalika .
3. Majina, hivi najiuliza pana ugumu gani wa kufuata majina haya Eva, Josef, Maria na sasa Kristu? Tunaletewa Hawa, Yusufu, Mariam na Kristo. Ukiangalia haya majina yanayopachikwa ni ya upande mwengine wa imani yetu. Hakuna mbadala wa jina halisi kama sio kutafuta tafsiri yake.
Mfano:-
Petrus, tafsiri yake ni mwamba na sio Peter (Kiinglishi). Najiuliza majina kama Maganga, Mkwawa, Milambo, Livingstone hata Putin sijaona mbadala wake?
Mambo ni mengi mkuu ila Sala ya Sinodi ya Kinisa Ulimwenguni 2021-2023 kama ilivotafsiriwa na Uaskofu Tabora unasema hivi
" Tunasimama mbele yako Roho Mtakatifu, tunapokutana pamoja katika Jina lako.

Tuwe nawe ukituongoza, ukiifanya mioyo yetu kuwa nyumbani mwako. Tuelekeze njia tunayopaswa kufuata na namna ya kuifuata.

Sisi ni wadhaifu na wadhambi; usituache kudumisha mvurugano. Usiruhusu ujinga wetu kutupeleka katika njia isiyo sahihi na uepushe udhaifu wetu kutawala matendo yetu.

Utusaidie kuonja umoja ndani yako, ili tuweze kusafiri pamoja hadi kufikia uzima wa milele, na kamwe tusiondoke katika njia ya ukweli na katika yaliyo kweli.

Kwa yote haya tunakuomba uwe nasi, Wewe uliyemtendaji kila mahali na kila wakati, katika umoja na Baba na Mwana, daima na milele. Amina."
Mkuu, ulifuatilia kongamano la Ekaristi mwaka jana lililofanyika Ifucha, Tabora? Kama ulifuatilia uliwaona wageni walioalikwa toka Kenya hasa yule mdada?
Paroko wangu katika homilia yake moja mwishoni mwa mwaka jana alilalamika kuwa panaanza mtindo wa baadhi ya waamini kutoisali sala ya Bikira Maria. Aibu na ni Hatari
Tumsifu YESU KRISTU.

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

"THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Before 1517, every Christian was Catholic. As such, today we know that:... The word CATHOLIC means UNIVERSALITY.

TYK!

You have argued well some of your points. However, your answer to the fill-in question "Before 1517, every Christian was Catholic. As such, today we know that:..." which you framed yourself was wrongly answered.

I shall make only two observations about (1) universality versus sectoriality, and (1) the interpretations of the phrase "this is my body".

1. Universality versus sectoriality

Universality and sectoriality, each, is a property of a property, and the two are mutually exclusive.

For example, before 1517 membership in Christianity directly implied membership in the Roman Christian Church (RCC).

Christian membership was a property having the property of universality.

That is ALL Christians were RCC members assenting to one faith as proposed by Rome.

And so the property of universality inhered in the property of membership.

After that date the universal set of Christian members split into many disjoint sets of members belonging to different Christian denominations, each having its own faith, relatively different from the original faith of the RCC.

Today, only some Christians are RCC members.

So the property of universality prior to 1517 qualified one property (Christian-cum-RCC membership) and the property of universality after that date no longer qualifies this property.

You have not specified the new property, and this omission makes your claim, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A UNIVERSAL CHURCH, to appear question begging: universal with respect to which property?

Specifically, I suspect that you are confusing the past and present tenses here. It appears to me that, the ante-1517 RCC, in fact, WAS a universal Christian church, while the post-1517 RCC, in fact, IS a sectorial Christian church.

As such the phrase ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (old RCC) is a misnomer under the post-1517 era. It should now read THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH (new RCC).

Otherwise, I call upon you to clarify the sense in which you talk about the universality of the new RCC after 1517, a period in which only SOME Christians are members of the RCC while OTHER CHRISTIANS are non-RCC members?

2. Alternative interpretations of the phrase "this is my body"

One of the differences between RCC and non-RCC Christian denominations arose from the manner in which the verb to-be (IS) in the phrase "this is my body" has to be interpreted. The following discussion shows the possible interpretations based on how one reads the verb to be "is":

The word "being," and its tense and cardinal variants "is", "was," "are," and "were" as used in everyday speeches, are very ambiguous in meaning.

Thus, I shall attempt to present some alternative meanings that may be attached to the word "being" and show how some of these meanings can assist in solving the Trinitarian Puzzles.

(a) Being as Identity: Under the meaning of “being” as identity, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of “being identical with”. For example, Julius is (identical with) Julius, Julius is (identical with) Nyerere. Identity as here referred to is a dyadic relation that relates each entity such as substance or event, to itself and to no other entity. Each substance is identical with itself, regardless of time. If an entity A is identical with an entity B, then there is absolutely no difference between A and B, and whatever is true of A is true of B and vice versa. There is no sense ever in saying that "A is partly identical with B," unless we mean merely that A and B are similar. But if this is what is meant, it would be better to say it explicitly, and not speak in riddles. This first meaning of "to be" is illustrated by the sentence, "Beauty is beauty."

(b) Being as attribution: The second meaning of "to be" is "to have as an attribute." This is the relation of attribution. This meaning is exemplified by the word "is" in the sentence, "The sky is blue." Here we take the meaning of the word "blue" to be the attribute "blueness," so the proposition could also be expressed by the sentence, "The sky has blueness as an attribute." Attribution is the relation of an entity to an attribute which the entity has. Here, the attribute is predicated of a subject. Then, the “is” of attribution does not express an equivalence relation and, in general, “x has P” and “y has P” do not necessarily imply that “x is identical to y.”

(c) Being as composition: The parts are said to compose the whole and the whole is composed of the parts. Thus, composition is the relation between a whole and its parts. Saying that Nyerere’s body is (composed of) skin and bone is not to say that Nyerere’s body is identical to skin and bone. There is skin and bone that do not compose Nyerere. Generally, the statement of the form “A is B” translates into “A is composed of set B.” And, the statement “A is composed of set B” translates into: A compound object A is composed of a set whose n-members are parts known as P1, P2, …, and Pn.

(d) Being as signification: Under the “is” of signification, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of “is a sign of”. For example, this flag is (a sign of) Tanzania, this Cross is (a sign of) Christianity, this cow is (a sign of) God, this bread is (a sign of) my body, this wine is (a sign of) my blood.

(e) Being as physical existence: Under the “is” of physical existence, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of "is physically located in space and time at a definite spacetime address." For example, The sun is, the moon is, Tanzania is, Father Christmas is not located any where in the physical world.

(e) Being as conceptual existence: Under the “is” of conceptual existence, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of "is conceptually located in the physical mind which is resident at a definite spacetime address." For example, Father Christmas is in the mind of Peter.

(g) Being as instantiation: Under the “is” of instantiation, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of "is an instance of". For example, given Anna, Mary, and Lydia, each is an instantance of the universal "humanity," and each has proper characteristics such that we don’t confuse them. So, when we count humans, we count by individual instances of humanity. In effect, what we have here are three instances of humanity, hence three humans, not a single human.

(h) Being as a type/form/state: Under the “is” of typification, the “verb to be” is a shorthand of "is a type of" or "is a kind of" or "is a form of". For example, ice is a form of water, vapor is a form of water.

Concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist, some Christian churches have chosen option (d), while the RCC chose option (a) from the beginning. Each side insists that its interpretation is faithful to scriptures and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

What they fail to realise is that, the same Holy Spirit cannot assert proposition P and deny it at the same time. This means that, either each side is guided by an own Holy Spirit or one side is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while the other side is not.

Careful discernment is needed, understanding that the real Holy Spirit cannot be owned by any denominational camp.

But, most important, this time when the synod has been convened, we need to reconsider this matter afresh in the spirit of rational ecumenism.

The synod is meant to be an opportunity for resolving the historical, theological, scientific and philosophical issues that divide Christianity, brew denominations and lead to disaffiliations.

In my opinion, if Jesus said that cannibalism is okay, we would still deny him obedience in this regard. Cannibalism is not right simply because God has said so.

I suggest that, God says cannibalism is wrong because cannibalism is wrong, and not vice versa.

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Mambo ni mengi mkuu ila Sala ya Sinodi ya Kinisa Ulimwenguni 2021-2023 kama ilivotafsiriwa na Uaskofu Tabora unasema hivi
" Tunasimama mbele yako Roho Mtakatifu, tunapokutana pamoja katika Jina lako.

Tuwe nawe ukituongoza, ukiifanya mioyo yetu kuwa nyumbani mwako. Tuelekeze njia tunayopaswa kufuata na namna ya kuifuata.

Sisi ni wadhaifu na wadhambi; usituache kudumisha mvurugano. Usiruhusu ujinga wetu kutupeleka katika njia isiyo sahihi na uepushe udhaifu wetu kutawala matendo yetu.

Utusaidie kuonja umoja ndani yako, ili tuweze kusafiri pamoja hadi kufikia uzima wa milele, na kamwe tusiondoke katika njia ya ukweli na katika yaliyo kweli.

Kwa yote haya tunakuomba uwe nasi, Wewe uliyemtendaji kila mahali na kila wakati, katika umoja na Baba na Mwana, daima na milele. Amina."

Askofu Ruzoka wa Tabora

Nimeipenda sala ya Dunia kuhusu Sinodi ya 2023 kama ilivotafsiriwa na "Uaskofu wa Tabora." Ni zana bora inayopaswa kujadiliwa kidogo. Naijadili hapa chini, baada ya kuhariri muundo wake tu:

" Tunasimama mbele yako Roho Mtakatifu,

Tunapokutana pamoja katika Jina lako.

Tuwe nawe ukituongoza,

Ukiifanya mioyo yetu kuwa nyumbani mwako.

Tuelekeze njia tunayopaswa kufuata na namna ya kuifuata.

Sisi ni wadhaifu na wadhambi;

Usituache kudumisha mvurugano.

Usiruhusu ujinga wetu kutupeleka katika njia isiyo sahihi

Na uepushe udhaifu wetu kutawala matendo yetu.

Utusaidie kuonja umoja ndani yako,

Ili tuweze kusafiri pamoja hadi kufikia uzima wa milele,

Na kamwe tusiondoke katika njia ya ukweli na katika yaliyo kweli.

Kwa yote haya tunakuomba uwe nasi,

Wewe uliyemtendaji kila mahali na kila wakati,

Katika umoja na Baba na Mwana,

Daima na milele.

Amina."


Lakini, kuna dosari mbili katika sala hii.

Kwanza, sala haitaji dhamira ya SINODI.

Na pili, ni sala inayoongea kwa mafumbo.

Tunasoma: "Usituache kudumisha mvurugano."

Kwa mujibu wa nakala ya sala ya Kiingereza, hapa neno "mvurugano" ni tafsiri ya neno "disorder."

Neno "mvurugano" ni kisawe cha neno "vurugu". Visawe vingine vya neno "vurugu" ni migongano, misukosuko, mikanganyiko, miparanganyiko, mtikisiko.

Kinyume cha "vurugu" ni utulivu, mpangilio, masikilizano, amani.

Bila shaka "mvurugano" unaoongelewa katika sala ni ile "vurugu" inayotokana na michuano ya hoja za kiitikadi (worldview clashes) tuliyoijadili hapo awali.

Hivyo, kinachoongelewa hapa ni mnyukano wa kirazini kati ya Wakristo Mambokale ambao ni wafuasi wa Mapokeo (Traditional Christianity) na Wakristo Mamboleo ambao ni wafuasi wa Uliberali (Liberal Christianity).

Kwa mujibu wa mwandishi wa sala inayojadiliwa hapa, Wakristo Mamboleo wanaonekana kama watu wanaofanya "vurugu" na kuleta "utovu wa nidhamu"

Yaani, kuwa na fikra za kidadisi (critical thinking), kufanya midahalo ya kirazini (rational debating) ni sawa na kufanya "vurugu" na kuleta "utovu wa nidhamu."

Hapana.

Huu ni mtazamo potofu.

Waafrika wengi ndio wamekuwa na mtazamo huu potofu.

Lakini, sala hii imeandaliwa kule Roma.

Kwa hiyo Waafrika hatuko peke yetu katika tatizo hili.

Mtazamo huu hauna uhalali.

Kwanza, midahalo inayobeba hoja za kirazini sio, na haijawahi kuwa, vurugu, na hasa kama ikifanyika kwa masikilizano, kila upande ukichangua mawazo na kisha kusikiliza upande wa pili, hadi mdahalo unapohitimishwa.

Na nijuavyo mie, sababu kubwa za "midahalo" hii kati ya Wakristo Mambokale na Wakristo Mamboleo ni tatu. Kwa miaka 1700 teolojia kongwe na falsafa kongwe zilitumika kama dira ya kifikra ulimwenguni.

Lakini, leo kuna teolojia mamboleo (analytical theology), falsafa mamboleo (analytical philosophy), na mapinduzi ya kisayansi vimefichua nyufa katika paa la mafundisho ya Kanisa yaliyokuwa na asili yake kwenye teolojia kongwe na falsafa kongwe.

Hivyo, Ukristo wa Kimapokeo wenye kuambatana na mikanganyiko ya kimantiki, miparanganyiko ya kimetafizikia na mifumo ya kimachiaveli umetikisika na paa lake kupata nyufa kwa sababu hizi.

Kwa hiyo, sio kweli kwamba Wakristo Mamboleo ndio wanaleta "vurugu."

Midahalo hii ni zao la historia na linapaswa kushughulikiwa kidayalekta.

Udayalektika ni utaratibu wa kuzalisha ukweli mpya kutokana na mchakato ufuatao:

Kutoa rai yenye kuambatana na ushahidi pamoja na waranti yake (thesis, ground and warrant), kuweka pingamizi (objections), kujibu pingamizi kwa njia ya kibutuzi (rebuttals), na kutamka mipaka ya pingamizi (qualifiers), kwa kukiri ujio wa ukweli mpya (concessions), na kwa njia hiyo kufungua milango ya kuukaribisha ukweli mpya.

Kwa ufupi, huu ni mchakato wa thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

Kwa sababu hizi, naona kuwa kuna maombi makuu manne yalisahaulika kwenye sala hii ya sinodi, yaani:

"Uwajalie Walei uwezo wa kuyajibu kikamilifu maswali yote ya dodoso kuhusu Sinodi bila hofu ya kuitwa majina mabaya kama vile anathema."

Na,

"Uwajalie Makleri uwezo wa kuyajibu kikamilifu maswali yote ya dodoso kuhusu Sinodi na kuwahamasisha walei kushiriki kwa ukamilifu kwenye mchakato huu kwa ukamilifu."

Na,

"Uwajalie Maaskofu wa Sinodi kutumia zana sahihi kusoma alama za nyakati na hivyo uwezo wa kuyajibu kikamilifu maswali yote kuhusu mambo yanayoleta mpasuko miongoni mwa Wakristo kiasi cha kuleta madhehebu mapya, kuibua mipasuko ndani ya madhehebu na kuzalisha Wakristo wastaafu."

Na,

"Umjalie Papa uwezo wa kuchukua maamuzi magumu dhidi ya mikanganyiko ya kimantiki katika imani, miparanganyiko ya kimetafizikia katika imani, na mifumo ya kimachiaveli ndani ya Kanisa.

Kwa njia hii, sala ingekuwa zana ya kuhamasisha waumini ili washiriki kwenye mchakato mzima wa SINODI wakiwa wanaelewa kinachotafutwa na jinsi ya kukipata kupitia dodoso la sinodi.

Lakini sasa, tuna sala bubu ambayo haitamki hata neno SINODI wala kusema lolote kuhusu mchakato wa kujibu DODOSO la sinodi.

Huku kwetu Simbawanga Mjini, katika ngazi ya parokia na kwenye Jumuiya Ndogo Ndogo, mchakato haujaeleweka kwa 90%!

Tumeletewa karatasi ya dodoso lisilo na utangulizi wa kumwongoza mjazaji na hakuna nafasi ya kumruhusu muumini kuandika majibu yake chini ya kila swali.

Tulicholetewa sio dodoso la kitafiti hata kidogo. Ni kama vile baadhi ya maparoko wamesusia mchakato huu na kuuacha userereke wenyewe kwa msaada wa gravitasia ya kauli za kiaskofu kutoka juu.

Lakini nadhani bado muda upo kwa ajili ya kufanya maboresho ili kuumahalisha mchakato wa sinodi.

 

[Irenga]

Pamewahi kutokea Papa Mwafrika? Kama Ndiyo alikuwa anaitwa nani, kama Hapana ni kwa nini?

Kwa nini Majina yote ya Hao mnaowaita Watakatifu wote majina yao ni ya Kizungu na hakuna hata moja la Kiafrika?

Nisaidie na mtanziko huo kwanza kwa ufupi au kwa urefu nitakuja kukuuliza mengine.

(1) Hakuna Papa anaetoka Afrika ila kuna wenye asili ya Afrika .
(2)Wapo Watakatifu wengi wenye asili ya Afrika kama Mt. Kizito & Mt. Kaloli Lwanga wote wa Uganda, Mt. Augustino wa Algeria , nk (unaweza kusoma google) ⤵️

The Great Saints of Africa

Africa was the home of St. Augustine, St. Anthony of the Desert, St. Moses the Ethiopian and St. Josephine Bakhita.

www.ncregister.com

 

[Lupweko]

Kufunga ndoa ni bure????
Huwa tunaomba risiti kwanza ya michango hata ubatizo
ni hivo pia!

Njoo au walete wanaotaka kufunga ndoa huku Parokiani kwetu, hakuna hata hela utakayodaiwa. Kama ulikuwa haushiriki kabisa jumuiya, utakumbushwa tu wajibu wako, lakini hautazuiliwa wala kudaiwa michango. Cha msingi uwe Mkristu mbatizwa wa Kanisa Katoliki, vinginevyo utalazimika kupata mafundisho kwanza

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Hedonology (Anasa za mwili na roho): What is the nature of the relationship between leisure, pleasure and recreation? What are the similarities and differences between intellectual and sensual pleasure? How can one maintain a healthy balance between intellectual and sensual pleasure? If so, is the puritanism-hedonism phenomenon an either/or scenario or a both/and scenario?

A picture showing an event related to the ordination of priests

PURITANISM-HEDONISM DICHOTOMY, PRIESTLY CELIBACY AND MACHIAVELLISM: ABOLISHING PRIESTLY CELIBACY WILL PUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ONE STEP AWAY FROM MACHIAVELLISM

The policy of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church elevates puritanism over hedonism. By doing so it promotes the machiavellistic ideology of body-self dualism, according to which, a human person is composed of mind and body, as two related, but essentially different substances, the position which is violative of the good of body-self integration. I argue that, the Catholic Church will have made one step away from the deadly ideology of machiavellism by abandoning the policy of priestly celibacy.

In the world of work, leisure, recreation and pleasure, humans spend their time in activities related to biological existence, that is, the things done to stay alive such as eating, sleeping, excretion, medication; for activities related to subsistence, that is, the things we must do to make a living as in work; and leisure.

Leisure is a block of unoccupied time, spare time, or free time, available to the individual for a discretionary recreational activity, when the time needed for activities related to biological existence, and the time needed for activities related to subsistence, have been met.

Recreational activities are activities chosen voluntarily by individuals or groups in their free time, because these activities, through the influence of pleasurable surroundings, promote the good of bodily and spiritual integration, meaning that, they actually “recreate” or “recharge” bodily and mental energy for the individuals so that they may resume daily obligations with vigor.

The way in which recreation and creation are related is suggested by the word “creation” which is embedded in the word “recreation,” in which case recreation entails the rehabilitation of temporary bodily and spiritual disintegration due to toil so as to bring about bodily and spiritual integration.

Recreational activities can be communal or solitary, active or passive, outdoors or indoors, healthy or harmful to individuals, and useful or detrimental for society.

Some recreational activities, such as gambling, recreational drug use, or delinquent activities, may violate societal norms and laws.

Some recreational activities are designated as hobbies which are activities done for pleasure on a regular basis.

Any structured form of play could become a game which is played sometimes purely for recreation, sometimes for achievement or monetary rewards as well.

Leisure and work are not mutually exclusive categories in some cases, since, work for pay can also be pleasurable and may be self-imposed thus blurring the distinction to recreation, and many activities in entertainment are work for pay for one person and recreation for another.

Pleasure is the reason why people engage in recreational play, and it includes such emotions as happiness, joy, fun, sensuality, amusement, mirth and tranquility, which make a person feel good.

Recreational activities can be placed on a continuum from purely sensual to purely intellectual activities and thus on a spectrum of sub-human to human activity, sensual to intellectual activity.

This means that, the difference between acting human and acting sub-human is how you seek pleasure, either via stimulation by cortex (human) or stimulation by the peripheral receptors (sub-human).

Sensory recreational activities include eating, drinking, listening to music, vandalism, hunting, physical play, sports, snowmobiling, caressing, kissing, necking, petting and coitus, all of which stimulate peripheral receptors.

Sensory-cortical recreational activities include the art of painting, sculpture, music composition, film making, sex based on emotional closeness, and certain occupations such as medicine and engineering.

They are based on the mingling of sensory and intellectual characteristics. They use creative thought to produce something which also gives sensual pleasure, such as music, or which adds a major intellectual dimension to a sensory experience, such as wine tasting.

Intellectual recreational activities provide pleasure without the use of sensory stimulation. They belong to the realm of thinkers such as philosophers, theologians, linguists, mathematicians, logicians, historians, physicists, and politicians. Their pleasure comes from their minds, not their actions.

Thus, if a society holds the philosophy that the state exists to enable people to become as human as they can be, to emphasize and nurture good and enduring human values, then, the hedonistic sector, that is, those social institutions that provide recreational services should take a careful look at their programs.

They have the responsibility to evaluate their programs in terms of their location on the sub-human to human spectrum so that, a proper balance between recreational activities that emphasize the sub-human by virtue of their sensory oriented programs and those recreational activities that emphasize the human by virtue of their intellectual oriented programs is maintained.

It is in terms of this logic, that I call upon the Catholic Church to move one step away from the deadly ideology of machiavellism by abandoning the policy of priestly celibacy.

This policy promotes puritanism over hedonism, and hence forces priests to lead a life devoid of a proper balance between intellectual pleasure and sensory pleasure.

On one hand, intellective puritanism is one extreme of the machiavellistic ideology of body-self dualism, which is violative of the good of body-self integration.

On the other hand, sensory hedonism is another extreme of the machiavellistic ideology of body-self dualism, which is violative of the good of body-self integration.

A proper balance between intellective puritanism and sensory hedonism is needed for promoting the good of body-self integration.

The good of body-self integration is a human good in consequence of which, humans attain psychological and bodily harmony, balance, serenity. It explains the extent to which the physical body is integrated into an individuals' conceptualizations of self.

Come 2023 synod, our Bishops are expect to say something on this nuance in the Catholic Church.

 

[H116]

View attachment 2092939
Askofu Ruzoka wa Tabora

Nimeipenda sala ya Dunia kuhusu Sinodi ya 2023 kama ilivotafsiriwa na "Uaskofu wa Tabora." Ni zana bora inayopaswa kujadiliwa kidogo. Naijadili hapa chini, baada ya kuhariri muundo wake tu:

" Tunasimama mbele yako Roho Mtakatifu,

Tunapokutana pamoja katika Jina lako.

Tuwe nawe ukituongoza,

Ukiifanya mioyo yetu kuwa nyumbani mwako.

Tuelekeze njia tunayopaswa kufuata na namna ya kuifuata.

Sisi ni wadhaifu na wadhambi;

Usituache kudumisha mvurugano.

Usiruhusu ujinga wetu kutupeleka katika njia isiyo sahihi

Na uepushe udhaifu wetu kutawala matendo yetu.

Utusaidie kuonja umoja ndani yako,

Ili tuweze kusafiri pamoja hadi kufikia uzima wa milele,

Na kamwe tusiondoke katika njia ya ukweli na katika yaliyo kweli.

Kwa yote haya tunakuomba uwe nasi,

Wewe uliyemtendaji kila mahali na kila wakati,

Katika umoja na Baba na Mwana,

Daima na milele.

Amina."


Lakini, kuna dosari mbili katika sala hii.

Kwanza, sala haitaji dhamira ya SINODI.

Na pili, ni sala inayoongea kwa mafumbo.

Tunasoma: "Usituache kudumisha mvurugano."

Kwa mujibu wa nakala ya sala ya Kiingereza, hapa neno "mvurugano" ni tafsiri ya neno "disorder."

Neno "mvurugano" ni kisawe cha neno "vurugu". Visawe vingine vya neno "vurugu" ni migongano, misukosuko, mikanganyiko, miparanganyiko, mtikisiko.

Kinyume cha "vurugu" ni utulivu, mpangilio, masikilizano, amani.

Bila shaka "mvurugano" unaoongelewa katika sala ni ile "vurugu" inayotokana na michuano ya hoja za kiitikadi (worldview clashes) tuliyoijadili hapo awali.

Hivyo, kinachoongelewa hapa ni mnyukano wa kirazini kati ya Wakristo Mambokale ambao ni wafuasi wa Mapokeo (Traditional Christianity) na Wakristo Mamboleo ambao ni wafuasi wa Uliberali (Liberal Christianity).

Kwa mujibu wa mwandishi wa sala inayojadiliwa hapa, Wakristo Mamboleo wanaonekana kama watu wanaofanya "vurugu" na kuleta "utovu wa nidhamu"

Yaani, kuwa na fikra za kidadisi (critical thinking), kufanya midahalo ya kirazini (rational debating) ni sawa na kufanya "vurugu" na kuleta "utovu wa nidhamu."

Hapana.

Huu ni mtazamo potofu.

Waafrika wengi ndio wamekuwa na mtazamo huu potofu.

Lakini, sala hii imeandaliwa kule Roma.

Kwa hiyo Waafrika hatuko peke yetu katika tatizo hili.

Mtazamo huu hauna uhalali.

Kwanza, midahalo inayobeba hoja za kirazini sio, na haijawahi kuwa, vurugu, na hasa kama ikifanyika kwa masikilizano, kila upande ukichangua mawazo na kisha kusikiliza upande wa pili, hadi mdahalo unapohitimishwa.

Na nijuavyo mie, sababu kubwa za "midahalo" hii kati ya Wakristo Mambokale na Wakristo Mamboleo ni tatu. Kwa miaka 1700 teolojia kongwe na falsafa kongwe zilitumika kama dira ya kifikra ulimwenguni.

Lakini, leo kuna teolojia mamboleo (analytical theology), falsafa mamboleo (analytical philosophy), na mapinduzi ya kisayansi vimefichua nyufa katika paa la mafundisho ya Kanisa yaliyokuwa na asili yake kwenye teolojia kongwe na falsafa kongwe.

Hivyo, Ukristo wa Kimapokeo wenye kuambatana na mikanganyiko ya kimantiki, miparanganyiko ya kimetafizikia na mifumo ya kimachiaveli umetikisika na paa lake kupata nyufa kwa sababu hizi.

Kwa hiyo, sio kweli kwamba Wakristo Mamboleo ndio wanaleta "vurugu."

Midahalo hii ni zao la historia na linapaswa kushughulikiwa kidayalekta.

Udayalektika ni utaratibu wa kuzalisha ukweli mpya kutokana na mchakato ufuatao:

Kutoa rai yenye kuambatana na ushahidi pamoja na waranti yake (thesis, ground and warrant), kuweka pingamizi (objections), kujibu pingamizi kwa njia ya kibutuzi (rebuttals), na kutamka mipaka ya pingamizi (qualifiers), kwa kukiri ujio wa ukweli mpya (concessions), na kwa njia hiyo kufungua milango ya kuukaribisha ukweli mpya.

Kwa ufupi, huu ni mchakato wa thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

Kwa sababu hizi, naona kuwa kuna maombi makuu manne yalisahaulika kwenye sala hii ya sinodi, yaani:

"Uwajalie Walei uwezo wa kuyajibu kikamilifu maswali yote ya dodoso kuhusu Sinodi bila hofu ya kuitwa majina mabaya kama vile anathema."

Na,

"Uwajalie Makleri uwezo wa kuyajibu kikamilifu maswali yote ya dodoso kuhusu Sinodi na kuwahamasisha walei kushiriki kwa ukamilifu kwenye mchakato huu kwa ukamilifu."

Na,

"Uwajalie Maaskofu wa Sinodi kutumia zana sahihi kusoma alama za nyakati na hivyo uwezo wa kuyajibu kikamilifu maswali yote kuhusu mambo yanayoleta mpasuko miongoni mwa Wakristo kiasi cha kuleta madhehebu mapya, kuibua mipasuko ndani ya madhehebu na kuzalisha Wakristo wastaafu."

Na,

"Umjalie Papa uwezo wa kuchukua maamuzi magumu dhidi ya mikanganyiko ya kimantiki katika imani, miparanganyiko ya kimetafizikia katika imani, na mifumo ya kimachiaveli ndani ya Kanisa.

Kwa njia hii, sala ingekuwa zana ya kuhamasisha waumini ili washiriki kwenye mchakato mzima wa SINODI wakiwa wanaelewa kinachotafutwa na jinsi ya kukipata kupitia dodoso la sinodi.

Lakini sasa, tuna sala bubu ambayo haitamki hata neno SINODI wala kusema lolote kuhusu mchakato wa kujibu DODOSO la sinodi.

Huku kwetu Simbawanga Mjini, katika ngazi ya parokia na kwenye Jumuiya Ndogo Ndogo, mchakato haujaeleweka kwa 90%!

Tumeletewa karatasi ya dodoso lisilo na utangulizi wa kumwongoza mjazaji na hakuna nafasi ya kumruhusu muumini kuandika majibu yake chini ya kila swali.

Tulicholetewa sio dodoso la kitafiti hata kidogo. Ni kama vile baadhi ya maparoko wamesusia mchakato huu na kuuacha userereke wenyewe kwa msaada wa gravitasia ya kauli za kiaskofu kutoka juu.

Lakini nadhani bado muda upo kwa ajili ya kufanya maboresho ili kuumahalisha mchakato wa sinodi.

Ni kweli dodoso haitoi/ kuonesha nini lengo lake na kuna umuhimu au manufaa yapi kushiriki katika dodoso hii.( Viongozi wahusika hajatupa mwongozo katika kujibu dodoso hii)

 

[Filosofia ya Rorya]

View attachment 2060577
Papa Francis akiwa mimbari

I. USULI

Kitu kinachowaunganisha wanajumuiya ni imani ya pamoja kuhusu vitu vinavyoonekana na visivyoonekana (belief), kanuni za kimaadili zenye kutamka miongozo na miiko kuhusiana na matendo binafsi na matendo ya pamoja wakati wa kutekeleza ajenda ya pamoja (norms) na tunu zinazotoa msingi wa matumani ya wanajumuiya (values).

Katika Ukristo, Imani inatamkwa katika Kanuni ya Imani ya Mitume, kanuni za maadili zinatamkwa katika Amri Kumi za Musa, na Matumani ya Wakristo yanatamkwa katika Sala ya Baba Yetu. Kwa ufupi, hicho ndicho kitako, kimo na kiegama cha itikadi asilia ya Ukristo (Christian worldview).

Kwa miaka 2000 sasa vikao mbalimbali vyamakanisa anwai ya Kikristo vimekuwa vikifanyika ili kufafanua, kutetea na kulinda mambo haya matatu. MItaguso ilitumika zamani. Lakni, siku hizo sinodi ni kikao cha aina mojawapo kwa ajili hii ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki.

Sinodi ya 16 ya Maaskofu Katoliki inaendelea tangu 10 Oktoba 2021, na itahitimishwa Oktoba 2023, huko Roma.

Tayari dodoso la kukusanya maoni ya walei na makleri limeshatolewa na kusambazwa maparokiani duniani kote. Dodoso lina maswali 51, moja likiwa swali kuu. Kwa kuzingatia ukweli huu, katika aya zifuatazo nafanya yafuatayo:

• Najadili dhamira na swali kuu la dodoso;
• Naorodhesha maswali madogo 50 ya dodoso;
• Najibu swali namba 50 katika dodo hili;
• Nadadavua dhana ya itikadi (worldview) kama zana muhimu kwa ajili ya kutusaidia kujibu dodoso kwa ufahasa;
• Natumia dhana hii kwa kufananisha na kutofautisha itikadi kuu tulizo nazo (worldview comparisons and contrasts);
• Naonyesha maeneo ya kiitikadi yapatayo 50 yenye mikanganyiko ya kimantiki (logical contradictions) na/au mikanganyiko ya kimetafizikia (metaphysical contradictions), mikanganyiko ambayo ni miongoni mwa sababu kuu za kusababisha mmomonyoko wa Kanisa Katoliki, kwa maana ya kuzalisha "Wakatoliki wastaafu"; na
• Hatimaye nahitimisha kwa kutoa mapendekezo kadhaa nikiwaalika wajibu dodoso kutumia ya dhana ya itikadi (worldview) kama nyenzo muhimu kwa ajili ya kuchuja na kutofautisha kati ya pumba za itikadi duni na mchele wa itikadi bora.

II. UTANGULIZI

Milenia mbili zilizopita ilizaliwa dini ya Ukristo, mara tu baada ya habari za ufufuko wa Yesu wa Nazareth kuenea Yerusalemu, na baadaye dunia nzima.

Na sasa dini ya Ukristo ni itikadi (worldview) inayokabiliwa na ushindani mkubwa kutoka kwenye itikadi mbadala kama vile Uislamu, Ubuda, Uhindu, Ukonfuchio, Ukomunisti wa Marx, Ukanamungu, Uliberali, Usekulari, na Usayansi.

Tangu wakati huo hadi leo Ukristo kupitia Madhehebu ya Katoliki umekuwa na utaratibu wa kufanya Mkutano wa Juu Kabisa wa kitaasisi uitwao Mtaguso (Council).

Ni kama ambavyo Anual General Meeting (AGM) huwa ni Mkutano wa Juu Kabisa wa Kampuni au Azaki.

Kwa mujibuwa tovuti maarufu ya Kikatoliki iitwayo New Advent, tayari mitaguso 21 ifuatayo imefanyika, miaka yake ya kufanyika ikiwa kwenye mabano hapa chini:

Nikea I (325); Konstantinopoli I(381); Efeso (431); Chalsedoni (451); Konstantinopoli II (553); Konstantinopoli III (680-681); Nikea II (787); MKonstantinopoli IV (869); Laterani I (1123); Laterani II (1139); Laterani III (1179); Laterani IV (1215); Layoni I(1245); Layoni II (1274); Vienna (1311-1313); Konstansia (1414-1418); Florensi (1431-1439); Laterani V (1512-1517); Trent (1545-1563); Vatikano I (1869-1870) na Vatikano II (1962-1965).

Kila Mtaguso ulikuwa na ajenda yake mahsusi. Kwa mfano, Mtaguso wa Trent (1545-1563) ulilenga kujibu mapigo dhidi ya Mafundisho ya Mtawa wa KIjerumani Martin Luther aliyeanzisha Kanisa Jipya la Kilutheri duniani.

Mtaguso wa II wa Vatikano ndio ulianzisha utaratibu wa Kanisa zima kukutana kwa njia ya Sinodi katika ngazi ya Kanda, Bara na hata Dunia nzima kwa ajili ya mashauriano juu ya masuala muhimu ya Kikanisa.

Tayari zimefanyika sinodi 15 tangu 1965. Na sasa Sinodi ya 16 ya Maaskofu Katoliki Duniani inaendelea tangu ilipozinduliwa na Papa Francis tangu 10 Oktoba 2021 huko Roma.

Sinodi ya 16, itakayofanyika kwa miaka mitatu mfululizo, tangu 2021 hadi 2023, inanogeshwa na kauli mbiu isemaayo “Kwa Ajili ya Kanisa la Kisinodi: Umoja, Ushiriki na Utume.”

Sinodi hii itahitimishwa Oktoba 2023 huko huko Roma, baada ya Papa atakayekuwepo wakati huo kupokea maoni ya walei, makasisi, maaskofu, makardinali, Waanglikana, Walutheri, Waislamu, na watu wengine kutoka duniani kote kupitia dodoso maalum kwa ajili hii.

Katika aya zinazofuata nafanya yafuatayo: Najadili swali kuu la dodoso; naorodhesha maswali madogo 50 ya dodoso; nadadavua dhana ya itikadi (worldview) kama zana muhimu kwa ajili ya kutusaidia kujibu dodoso kwa ufahasa; natumia dhana hii kuonyesha utitiri wa itikadi tulio nao (worldview pluralism) na migongano kati yake; kisha nahitimisha kwa mapendekezo kadhaa nikiwaalika wajibu dodoso kutumia ya itikadi (worldview) kama nyenzo muhimu kwa ajili ya kutofautisha pumba za itikadi duni na mchele wa itikadi bora .

III. DHAMIRA KUU NA SWALI KUU LA SINODI

Dhamira kuu ya Sinodi ya 16 ya Kiaskofu inabainishwa na swali la msingi katika dodoso hilo. Kwa mujibu wa dodoso husika, swali hilo ni:

• Katika kutangaza Injili, kwa njia ya Kanisa la Sinodi, waumini wanapaswa “kusafari pamoja.”
• Je, katika Kanisa mahalia la leo “safari ya pamoja” inafanyika ipasavyo?
• Je, [kama jawabu ni hapana,] ni hatua gani ambazo Roho Mtakatifu anatualika kuchukua ili tuweze [kusafiri pamoja bila kumwacha mtu yeyote nyuma na] kukua wakati wa "safari ya pamoja”?

Kwa mujibu wa swali hili, ni kama vile Papa Francis amesukumwa na Enjili ya Mwana Mpotevu. Anawaacha wale kondoo 99 na kwenda kumtafuta yule mmoja aliyepotea. Anataka kondoo wote wajiunge katika "safari ya pamoja".

Katika historia ya Kanisa, sinodi ya 16 unao upekee wa aina mbili. Kwanza, hii ni sinodi ya kwanza duniani inayoanza kwa kukusanya maoni ya waumini walei wote kwa njia ya dodoso.

Na pili, ni sinodi ya kwanza, kuwaalika watu walio nje ya Madhehebu ya Katoliki kutoa maoni yao juu ya ajenda ya Kanisa Katoliki kuhusu maboresho ya imani na matendo yake.

Yaani, Walutheri, Waanglikana, Wapagani, Wakanamungu, Waislamu na watu baki wenye manung'uniko dhidi ya itikadi Katoliki wanaalikwa kujaza dodoso na kuwasilisha mawazo yao kwa Papa Francis, kupitia viongozi wa Kanisa mahalia, ili ayafanyie kazi.

Ni jukumu la makanisa mahalia kuweka utaratibu mzuri wa kukusanya maoni kutoka kwa makundi yote haya, na kisha kuyafikisha kwa Papa Francis.

Tayari maswali madogo ya dodoso yameorodheshwa kwenye uzi mwingine unaopatikana mahali hapa.

IV. SAFARI YA PAMOJA, IMANI YA PAMOJA, KANISA MOJA

Napenda sasa kufanya tafakari yangu kuhusu dodoso la sinodi ya 16 ya Maaskofu Katoliki Duniani kwa kujibu swali la 12 na swali la 50. Yaani:

• 12. Je, tunayasikilizaje mazingira ya kijamii na kitamaduni yanayotuzunguka?"
• 50. Ni zana gani hutusaidia kusoma mienendo ya utamaduni ambamo tumezama na athari zake kwa mtindo wetu wa Kanisa?

Napendekeza kwamba maswali haya mawili yasomeke hivi:

• 12. Je, [tunapaswa kuyasikilizaje] mazingira ya kijamii na kitamaduni yanayotuzunguka?
• 50. Ni zana gani [zinapaswa kutusaidia] kusoma mienendo ya utamaduni ambamo tumezama na athari zake kwa mtindo wetu wa Kanisa?

Lakini, kabla ya kujikita katika kutoa jawabu husika, nataka kuweka msingi wa kimisamiati kwa ajili ya kuweza kuwasiliana na hadhira yangu kwa ufasaha. Nataka kwanza nijibu maswali kadhaa kama vile safari ya pamoja ni kitu gani, imani ya pamoja ni kitu gani, jinsi ya kuitambua imani ya pamoja na kuitofautisha na imani baki, na kwa nini sinodi ya 16 ya Maaskofu Katoliki leo.

Safari ya pamoja ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani?

Kuhusu misamiati muhimu, napenda kuongea kidogo juu ya maneno kwamba "sinodi ni safari ya pamoja."

Uhai wa Kanisa la Kisinodi unategemea uwepo wa "safari ya pamoja," safari ya pamoja inamaanisha uwepo wa "Umoja wa Kikanisa," Kanisa ni jumuiya, na Jumuiya ni kitu kimoja kinachowaunganisha watu wengi kwa kutumia "kanuni ya umoja wa vitu vingi vidogo vinavyounda kitu kimoja kikubwa zaidi" (the unity of a compound thing).

Kifalsafa, na hasa tangu enzi za kina Aristotle wa Ugriki, kanuni ya umoja wa vitu vingi inasema kwamba, umoja wa vitu viwili hutegemea uwepo wa kitu cha tatu kinachoviunganisha vitu hivyo viwili; kwamba, umoja wa vitu vitatu hutegemea uwepo wa kitu cha nne kinachoviunganisha vitu hivyo vitatu; na vivyo hivyo kwa vitu vinne, vitano na kuendelea (Hoffman na Rosenkrantz 1998; Johnston 2013: 296-98; Pruss 2013; Qingyun 2015).

Kuhusu dhana hii ya umoja wa kitu kikubwa chenye sehemu nyingi ndogo ndogo, napenda kumnukuu mwanafalsafa na mwanamahesabu Pruss (2013) kuhusiana na fasili yake ya mwili ('body') kama ifuatavyo:

"A [single] body is neither a simple unity nor a mere collection of parts. It is an articulated entity with parts that work together cooperatively, each performing some function needed by the whole" (p.90).

Pruss (2013) anaendelea kuandika, safari hii akitumia dhana hii ya kifalsafa, kuhusu umoja wa mwili ambao ni kitu kizima chenye sehemu nyingi ndogo ndogo ndani yake, katika kukoleza hoja ya kiteolojia ifuatayo:

"The functioning parts of the body are interconnected by their coordinated striving for at least one common purpose. It is worth considering two different theological applications to this [philosophical] notion. The direct connection is Paul’s understanding of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12:13–28... As he says, 'The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you' (12:21). Paul sees the body (soma) as consisting of parts, each of which makes its own distinctive contribution. The eye contributes sight and the hand manipulation. It would not do for one part to exist without the others. Each has need of the others" (p.109).

Kwa ujumla, umoja wa kitu kimoja chenye sehemu nyingi hutegemea uwepo wa kitu cha ziada, mbali na sehemu hizo, ambacho huziunganisha sehemu hizo pamoja hadi kuzifanya ziwe kitu kimoja.

Kwa mfano, ndoa ya mke na mume ni kitu kimoja kwa sababu mke na mume wanaunganishwa na kitu cha tatu kiitwacho tendo la ndoa, ambalo ni tendo la ngono ya jenitalia kwa jenitalia linalofanyika kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya muamala wa kubadilishana zawadi ya mwili (self-donation), na siokufanyika kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya muamala wa kibiashara ambapo mwili ni bidhaa inayopigwa bei (self-comodification).

Familia ya Baba, Mama na Watoto ni kitu kimoja, kwa sababu watoto ni zao la damu ya Baba na Mama linalopatikana kupitia tendo la ngono ya jenitalia kwa jenitalia.

Vivyo hivyo, Kanisa linapaswa kuwa kitu kimoja kwa sababu maalum. Kitu kinachowaunganisha wanakanisa ni imani (credenda) ambayo huweka msingi wa matendo (agenda) na matumaini (speranda) ya pamoja.

Kwa hiyo, pasipo "imani ya pamoja" hakuna "safari ya pamoja", na bila "safari ya pamoja" hakuna "Kanisa la Kisinodi."

Imani ya pamoja ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani?

Kama hivyo ndivyo, swali la kuongoza tafakari yangu linazuka: "imani ya pamoja" ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki, yaani imani yenye kulifanya Kanisa hili lijihesabu na kuhesabiwa kama kitu kimoja, hasa ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani?

Hapa napendekeza kwamba, imani ya kidini, kama vile imani ya Kanisa Katoliki, Imani ya Kanisa la Anglikana na Imani ya Kanisa la Kilutheri, ni itikadi (worldviews) kati ya itikadi nyingi zilizopo ulimwenguni. Ujamaa, ukomunisti wa Karl Marx, Usekulari, na Ukanamungu ni itikadi pia.

Noebel na Myers (2015) wanakubaliana na mtazamo huu. Wao wamejadili aina sita za itikadi zikiwemo itikadi za Secularism, Marxism, Postmodernism, Islam and Christianity. Wanataja fasili ifuatayo ya neno itikadi:

"A worldview is a pattern of ideas, beliefs, convictions, and habits that help us make sense of God, the world, and our relationship to God and the world" (Noebel and Myers 2015:16)

Wanaongeza maneno haya:

"Our worldview does not merely reflect what we think the world is like; it directs what we think the world should be like. In other words, our worldview not only describes reality, it prescribes how we should act and respond to every aspect of life. Because our ideas do determine how we behave, the bottom line is that our ideas do have consequences." (Noebel and Myers 2015:16)

Naye Sire (2009) ameorodhesha itikadi kama vile Theism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Pantheism, Postmodernism, na kuendelea.

Bila shaka Ukristo na Madhehebu yake, kwa upande mmoja, Uislamu a Madhehebu yake, kwa upande mwingine, ni dini zinazoanguka kwenye itikadi ya Theism.

Na kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya kuhesabu vitu vinavyofanana kwa kutumia vigezo vya lazima na vyenye kutosheleza mahitaji ya kutofautisha vitu hivyo (the principle of individuation based on necessary and sufficient conditions) kila dhehebu linayo itikadi kamili inayolifanya liwe kitu kimoja kamili.

Baada ya kuorodhesha itikadi hizi, Sire (2009) anasema kuwa zote zinafanana katika jambo moja kuu, kwani, kila moja ni "itikadi" ambayo kwa namna yake inatoa jawabu kwa swali lifuatalo:

Je, "anatomia ya msingi ya mti wa uhalisia" (basic constitution of reality) kuhusu Mungu, Binadamu, Jamii na Ulimwengu baki inaonyesha kwamba mti huu unayo matawi mangapi na matawi hayo yana vijitawi vingapi?

Yaani wanasema kuwa:

"A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) that we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being." (Sire 2009:20).

James Olthuis (1989:29) anasema yafuatayo kuhusu dhana ya itikadi (worldview):

"A worldview (or vision of life) is a framework or set of fundamental beliefs through which we view the world and our calling and future in it. This vision need not be fully articulated: it may be so internalized that it goes largely unquestioned; it may not be theoretically deepened into a philosophy; it may not even be codified into a creedal form; it may be greatly refined through culturalhistorical development. Nevertheless, this vision is a channel for the ultimate beliefs which give direction and meaning to life. It is the integrative and interpretive framework by which order and disorder are judged; it is the standard by which reality is managed and pursued; it is the set of hinges on which all our everyday thinking and doing turns."

Katika mazingira haya, Miaka sita baadaye, Sire (2015) aliandika tena na kufafanua itikadi saba alizozitafiti, yaani Christian theism, deism, naturalism, nihilism, exitentialism, new age spirituality na postmodernism. Anatumia maneno yafuatayo, ambayo sitaki kuyatafsiri, maana naweza kupoteza utamu:

"The bulk of [my book entitled] The Universe Next Door identified seven basic worldviews and then proceeded to explain what they were.

"I began with ...THEISM as it has been largely embodied from the seventeenth century to the present [as a belief in a supernatural being called God].

"Then I tried to show how DEISM arose as an erosion of certain key concepts of theism. Deism, as I see it, is ... what is left of theism when the personality of God is abandoned.

"NATURALISM, then, is a further erosion of deism, retaining its optimism with regard to the autonomy of human reason.

"NIHILISM is what is left of naturalism when it is realized that human reason, if autonomous, does not have the power to explain nearly as much as was first thought.

"EXISTENTIALISM—both atheistic and theistic—attempts to “go beyond nihilism,” affirming the intrinsic power of the individual self to will into being its own conception of the good, the true and the beautiful or to affirm by faith what cannot be proved by reason. Eastern pantheistic monism provides for the West a fresh start that attempts to avoid the pitfalls of Western thought.

"NEW AGE [SPIRITUALITY] thought then combines Western existentialism’s exaltation of the self with the Eastern notion of the deity of all things...

"POSTMODERNISM has taken a sociological and psychological twist to deny, on the one hand, the human ability to actually know reality in its essence and, on the other hand, to affirm the adequacy of human communities to construct reality by their language.

"One may not be able to know anything, but one can get along with this knowledge simply by constructing a language that works to get what one wants. Pragmatic knowledge is all one can have and all one needs." (Sire 2015:12). (Emphasis by capitalisation mine).

Mwandishi Sire (2015) anaigawanya itikadi ya "naturalism" kwenye sehemu mbili, yaani "secular humanism" na "Marxist humanism." Kimsingi, wafuasi wa "secular humanism" hawafungamani na upande wowote kati ya "wapingamungu" (atheists) na "wakirimungu" (theists). Kwa upande mwingine, wafuasi wa "Marxist humanism" ni aina mojawapo ya "wapingamungu" (atheists).

Kwa ufupi, anachosema Sire (2009, 2015) kuhusu itikadi kinaweza kunyumbulishwa kwa kusema kwamba:

"A worldview is a set of beliefs about the basic anatomy of reality that influence one's perceptions, thoughts and behaviours." (Mnyumbulisho wangu)

Kwa mfano, katika upande mmoja, Itikadi (worldview) ya Ukristo Asilia tangu enzi za Mitume 12 wa Yesu Mnazareti hadi leo inakumbatia mambo makubwa matatu. Mosi, Kanuni ya Imani ya Mitume, yenye kufafanua kiini cha imani. Pili, Amri Kumi za Musa, zenye kutoa miongozo na miiko maishani. Na tatu, Sala ya Baba Yetu, yenye kufafanua utume wa Yesu na wafuasi wake, kwa mujibu wa Yesu.

Mambo haya matatu yanakubalia katika sehemu kubwa ya Ukristo, yanagusa kila sehemu ya maisha ya Mkristo, yanao msingi wake katika maandiko na teolojia, na ni muhtasari bora kwa ajili udadavuzi wa kipengele kwa kipengele.

Na katika upande wa pili, itikadi (worldview) ya Uislamu inazo nguzo kuu tano. Yaani, kumkiri Allah na Muhamad kama mtume wake; kusali mara tano kwa siku; kufunga wakati wa mwezi mtukufu wa Ramadhani; kutoa zaka; na kufanya hija huko Maka angalau mara moja maishani.

Itikadi (worldview) hizi huokotwa kutoka vyanzo vikuu vitano. Kuna wazazi, makundi rika, viongozi wa dini, viongozi maarufu wa kisiasa na kijamii lakini wasio wazazi wetu, na walimu wetu mashuleni na vyuoni wanaotufunza kwa mujibu wa mitaala rasmi ya kiserikali.

V. TUTAZITAMBUAJE ITIKADI ANWAI ZA ULIMWENGU?

Tamaduni zinazolizinguka Kanisa Katoliki zinaweza kuangazwa vema kama tukikubaliana kwamba, kila utamaduni ni itikadi mtambuka (comprehensive worldview) kamili inayojitegemea.

Katika muktadha huu, napendekeza kwamba, zana inayopaswa kutumika kuumulika Ukristo na tamaduni zinazouzunguka ni kitu ambacho hapa nataka nikiite "Chujio kwa Ajili ya Kuchambua Itiakdi za Ulimwengu."

Kwa ajili ya kuzitambua itikadi anwani za ulimwengu, natofautisha machujio mawili. Kwa upande mmoja kuna "Chujio Kubwa kwa Ajili ya Kuchambua Itiakdi za Ulimwengu (CHUKAKIU)," yaani "Comprehensive Worldview Analysis Toolkit (COWATO)".

Na kwa upande mwingine kuna "Chujio Dogo kwa Ajili ya Kuchambua Itiakdi za Ulimwengu (CHUDAKIU)," yaani "Abridged Worldview Analysis Toolkit (AWATO)."

Mara nyingi, naona kuwa chujio dogo huwa na maswali kati ya nne na kumi. Kwa mfano, Walsh na Middleton (1984) wanataja chujio lenye maswali manne, yaani:

• "(1) Identity: Who am I ,Or, what is the nature, task and purpose of hum an beings?
• (2) Location: Where am I, Or, w hat is the nature of the w orld and universe I live in?
• (3) Evils: What's wrong, Or, w hat is the basic prob lem or obstacle that keeps me from attaining fulfillment or salvation?
• (4) Salvation: What is the remedy, Or, how is it possible to overcome this hindrance to my fulfillment or salvation? "(p.35)

Sire (2009) anataja chujio lenye maswali saba yafuatayo:

• "(1) Ontology: What is prime reality?
• (2) Cosmology: What is the nature of the cosmos, that is, the world around us?
• (3) Anthropology: What is a human being?
• (4) Thanatology: What happens to a person at death?
• (5) Epistemology: Why is it possible to know anything at all?
• (6) Ethicology: How do we know what is right and wrong?
• (7) Historiology: What is the meaning of human history?" (p. 22-24)

Na Noebel na Myers (2015) wanataja chujio lenye maswali kumi yafuatayo:

• "(1) Theology: How did I and everything else get here?
• (2) Philosophy: What is real, as opposed to illusion, and how can I know it with certainty?
• (3) Ethics: What does it mean to live a good life?
• (4) Biology: What does it mean to be alive?
• (5) Psychology: What makes me a person?
• (6) Sociology: How do we live in community with one another?
• (7) Economics: How can individuals and the community be optimally productive?
• (8) Law: What constitutes just and orderly governance?
• (9) Politics: What is the best way to organize a political community?
• (10) History: How did people in the past think and act on theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, law, and economics?" (p.30-36).

Ni rai yangu kwamba, zana ya kuchuja itikadi mtambuka yenye kubeba maswali manne, saba, kumi, hata ishirini, haikidhi mahitaji yaliyopo kwa ajili ya kuzifananisha na kuzitofautisha itikadi mtambuko zilizopo katika dunia ya leo.

Katika ulimwengu wa leo, itikadi (worldview) inabeba mambo mengi sana, kama ambavyo mitaala ya kielimu kuanzia chekechea hadi chuo kikuu sehemu mbalimbali duniani inavyoshuhudia.

Kwa hiyo, kama nitakavyoonyesha hivi punde, napendekeza kwamba, tunapaswa kutumia "Chujio Mtambuka kwa Ajili ya Kuchambua Itiakdi za Ulimwengu," inayojumuisha maswali yanayogawanyika kwenye mafungu yapatayo 60.

Ni katika muktadha huu, natumia neno "itikadi" kumaanisha "worldview." Haya ni maneno ambao yanawakilisha dhana mahsusi kama inavyojadiliwa na watafiti maarufu, ndani na nje ya Kanisa Katoliki, kama nitakavyoonyesha.

Na maneno "Itikadi mtambuka" hapa yatamaanisha dhana ya "Comprehensive Worldview" kama inavyojadiliwa na wanazuoni kama vile John Rawls ambaye pia alipendelea kutumia maneno "comprehensive doctrines" kama kisawe (Rawls 1987).

Ni maoni yangu kwamba, chujio mwafaka la kiitikadi linapaswa kujumuisha maeneo 60 yafuatayo:

1. Administrology (Utawala wa taasisi)
2. Agatheology (Wema wa Mungu)
3. Agathology (Wema)
4. Angelology (Malaika)
5. Anthropology (Ubinadamu)
6. Axiology (Tunu)
7. Biology (Uhai)
8. Chorology (Mwanya)
9. Christology (Yesu Kristo)
10. Chronology (Mahusiano kati ya historia na eskatolojia)
11. Clericology (Mfumo-kasisi)
12. Cosmology (Ulimwengu ulio nje ya mwili)
13. Criminology (Jinai)
14. Criteriology (logic) (Mantiki)
15. Demology (Ongezeko la watu)
16. Demonology (Shetani)
17. Deontology (Haki na majukumu)
18. Dogmatology (Imani zisizopaswa kuhojiwa)
19. Ecclesiology (Utawala wa Kikanisa)
20. Ecology (Mazingira)
21. Economiology(Economics) (Uchumi)
22. Ecumenology (Uekumene)
23. Embryology (Mimba)
24. Epistemology (Maarifa ya kweli)
25. Ethicology (Maadili)
26. Etiology (Mfumo wa sababu na matokeo)
27. Harmatiology (Dhambi)
28. Hedonology (Anasa za mwili na roho)
29. Historiology (Historia)
30. Jurisiology (Jurisprudence) (Sheria)
31. Mariology (Bikira Maria)
32. Matrimoniology (Ndoa)
33. Meriology (Kitu kizima na sehemu zake)
34. Mythology (Visasili)
35. Naratology (Masimulizi)
36. Organismology (Uaoganizimalia)
37. Ontology (Kikonyo cha uhalisia)
38. Paterology (Mungu Baba)
39. Pathology (Magonjwa)
40. Patriarchology (Mfumo dume)
41. Personology (Utu)
42. Phenomenology (fenomena)
43. Physicology (physics) (fizikia)
44. Pneumatology (Roho Mtakatifu)
45. Politology (uongozi wa nchi)
46. Ponerology (Ubaya)
47. Praxiology (Kupanga, kutekeleza, na kupima utekelezaji)
48. Psychology (Mind) (King'amuzi chenye akili na utashi)
49. Sacramentology (Sakramenti)
50. Semiology (Alama)
51. Sexology (Ujinsia)
52. Sociology (Jamii)
53. Somatology (Tabia za magimba)
54. Soteriology (Wokovu/Ustawi)
55. Technology (Tekinolojia)
56. Teliology (Sarafu ya uhalisia na telosia)
57. Thanatology (Kifo)
58. Thaumatology (miujiza)
59. Theology (Miungu)
60. Trinitology (Utatu wa nafsi ya Baba, Mwana, na Roho Mtakatifu)

Katika muktadha huu, napendekekeza kuwa Imani Katoliki ni aina mojawapo ya itikadi (worldviews) zinazokubaliana na fasili ya Sire (2009), fasili ya Noebel and Myers (2015) na fasili ya James Olthuis (1989) kuhusu swali, "itikadi ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani?"

VI. JINSI ITIKADI ZINAVYOFANYA KAZI

Kwa ujumla, itikadi ni kama miwani ya maisha. Ukivaa miwani ya kijani kila kitu kinaonekana kijana. Kama miwani inayo rangi nyekundi, kila kitu kinaonekana chekundu. Ukivaa miwani yenye lenzi mbinuko pini inaonekana kubwa kama mkuki. Na ukivaa miwani yenye lenzi mbonyeo, gari kubwa linaonekana dogo kama karai.

Tofauti hizi zinaweza kuonyeshwa kwa njia nyingine, Yaani, kwa kutumia mfano wa kioo chenye umbo la mche pembetatu (prism/prizimu), miale ya mwanga wa uhalisia inayotua kwenye upande mmoja wa prizimu hiyo, na miale ya mwanga wa uhalisia inayopita na kuchomoza kwenye upande wa pili wa prizimu hiyo.

Kwa kawaida mwanga mweupe ukigonga, na kisha kupita kwenye uso wa kioo cha prizimu ya aina hii, hupiga kona kidogo kwa kutengeneza pembe mchepuko (dispersion angle), kutanuka, na hivyo kuonyesha miale minane ya rangi zilizofichika ndani ya mwanga mweupe, yaani rangi za Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Bluee, Indigo, na Violet (ROYGBIV) kama picha ifuatayo inavyoonyesha.

View attachment 2073404

Kila mwale unaochomoza upande wa pili wa prizimu unao upana wake wa mawimbi yenye kuambatana na upana wa frikwensi zake maalum kama jedwali lifuatalo linavyoonyesha, ambapo upana wa mdomo wa wimbi moja inatamkwa kutumia kipimo cha nanometa (nm), wakati upana wa frikwensi ya wimbi moja inatamkwa kwa kutumia kipimo cha teraherts (THz).

View attachment 2061555

Vivyo hivyo, miale mtuo ya mwanga wa uhalisia ukitua na kisha kupenya kwenye kioo cha prizimu ya itikadi yoyote, itazalisha miale mchomozo ya kiitikadi, kila mwale mchomozo ukiwa na upana wake wa frikwensi za uhalisia kulingana na prizimu ya kiitikadi iliyotumika kutawanya mwanga.

VII. MGAWANYO WA ITIKADI KWENYE MAKUNDI KADHAA

Kwa ujumla, itikadi zote zinaweza kugawanywa katika makundi mawili. Kwa upande mmoja, itikadi za kidini zinaunganishwa na sifa zifuatazo: zinajihusisha na mambo yasiyoweza kuthibitishwa wala kukanushwa kwa njia ya milango mitano ya fahamu (empirically untestable matters).

Pia kuna ibada; vitu vyote hugawanywa katika makundi mawili ya vitu vitakatifu na vitu visivyo vitakatifu; uendelevu; kugusa maisha yote ya watu.

Aidha itikadi hizi zina msingi wake katika hadithi za kale zilizovishwa joho la utakatifu kwa ajili ya kueleza sisi ni nani, tumetoka wapi, tuko wapi, na tunakwenda wapi.

Kadhalika, itikadi hizi hutaja wanaachopaswa kuamini watu kuhusu Mungu, ukweli, chimbuko la ulimwengu, ubinadamu, maadili, wokovu, lengo la maisha, na hatima ya ulimwengu.

Na mwisho itikadi hizi hutaja mwongozo inaowaonyesha wafuasi jinsi ya kuenenda kulingana na mapenzi ya Mungu wao.

Mifano ya itikadi za kidini ni dini za Ubuda, Ukristo, Uhindu, Uyahudi, Uislamu, Usiki, na Utao.

Kwa upande mwingine, itikadi za kidunia zinajihusisha na mambo yanayoweza kuthibitishwa au kukanushwa kwa njia ya milango mitano ya fahamu (empirically testable matters).

Hizi ni imani zilizobuniwa na wanadamu kwa ajili ya kujibu maswali kadhaa ya maisha kuhusu kuhusu Mungu, Binadamu, Jamii na Ulimwengu baki.

Kwa mujibu wa itikadi hizi, kizio cha ukweli ni milango mitano ya fahamu. Mifano yake ni materialism or physicalism, humanism, naturalism, atheism , secularism na scientism/empiricism.

Mgawanyo huu wa itikadi katika itikadi za kidini na itikadi za kidunia ni kwa mujibu wa andiko la Sulaiman (2018).

VIII. JINSI YA KUTAMBUA MIGONGANO YA KIITIKADI

Kwa ujumla, ni maoni yangu kwamba, imani za watu kuhusu "anatomia ya mti wa uhalisia" kuhusu Mungu, Binadamu, Jamii na Ulimwengu baki zikichambuliwa vema, zitaonyesha kuwa mti huu unayo matawi 60 yafuatayo, yakiwa yamepangiliwa kialfabeti:

1. Administrology (Utawala wa taasisi): How should hierarchical institutions be governed?
2. Agatheology (Wema wa Mungu): How can we save the face of God who is identified with the ultimate good given the existence of terrible physical and moral evils in the world?
3. Agathology (Wema): what does the doctrine of human goods tells us tell us about the role of basic and instrumental goods in human floursihing?
4. Angelology (Malaika): What is the ontological nature and relevance of angels to human life?
5. Anthropology (Ubinadamu): What is the nature of human beings and their place in the universe?
6. Axiology (Tunu): what does the doctrine of human values tell us about the role of basic and instrumental values in human floursihing?
7. Biology (Uhai): Given that social, mechanical and biological organicity/organismality of a compound thing is the mutual influence and interaction between a totality and its parts toward a given telos, what does it mean to be biologically alive?
8. Chorology (Mwanya): What is the relationship between physical bodies and the physical spaces they occupy at any given time?
9. Christology (Yesu Kristo): What is the nature of Jesus Christ and how does he relate to humans and the Godhead?
10. Chronology (Majira): Is Time Substantival or Relational? Is Time Linear or Cyclic? Is Time Tensed or Tenseless? Is Time Finite or Infinite? What Is the Relationship between abstract objects, gods, God and Time? What is the ontological, epistemological and topological nature of the flow of time, that is, the temporal ordering of events accross time slices, and how is this process related to events such as the birth, persistence and death of some objects, on one hand, and the eternity of some objects, on the other hand? Is Time Real or Illusory?
11. Clericology (Mfumo-kasisi): What is the basis of the belief and practice that priests and bishops are very special, superior to lay people in matters personal and religious, and that their authority and pronouncements on all issues should be accepted and acted upon without deliberative inputs from those without the clerical designation?
12. Cosmology (Ulimwengu ulio nje ya mwili): What is the nature of the cosmos, that is, the world around us?
13. Criminology (Jinai): What is the nature of crimes and how do they differ from sins?
14. Criteriology (logic) (Mantiki): What is the nature of sound and valid reasoning?
15. Demology (Ongezeko la watu): What is the nature of population growth and how can it be controlled?
16. Demonology (Shetani): What is the nature of demons and how are they related to humans?
17. Deontology (Haki na majukumu): What is the origin and nature human rights and duties?
18. Dogmatology (Imani zisizopaswa kuhojiwa): What is the nature of beliefs which are accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted? Why is a particular Christian doctrine that has been raised to the status of an essential article of the church as an official councilliar and popal interpretation of divine revelation, such as the dogma of the Trinity, as formally stated in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381AC), considered infallible, despite the overtly inherent contradictions?
19. Ecclesiology (Utawala wa Kikanisa): How best should a church be governed?
20. Ecology (Mazingira): How do human activities positively and negatively affect ecosystem services and biodiversity and what can be done to balance the two?
21. Economiology(Economics) (Uchumi): How can individuals and the community be optimally productive?
22. Ecumenology (Uekumene): What is the Christian theology of other denominations and religions and to what extent does it promote social unity?
23. Embryology (Mimba): What is embryonic human life and when does it begin?
24. Epistemology (Maarifa ya kweli): Why is it possible to know anything at all?
25. Ethicology (Maadili): How do we know what is right and wrong?
26. Etiology (Mfumo wa sababu na matokeo): What is the ontological, episemological, spatial and temporal nature of causes and their effects?
27. Harmatiology (Dhambi): Is a sinful human act morally evil because it violates God's commandment or God 's commandment forbids it because it is morally evil?
28. Hedonology (Anasa za mwili na roho): What is the nature of the relationship between leisure, pleasure and recreation? What are the similarities and differences between intellectual and sensual pleasure? How can one maintain a healthy balance between intellectual and sensual pleasure? If so, is the puritanism-hedonism phenomenon an either/or scenario or a both/and scenario?
29. Historiology (Historia): What is the meaning of human history?
30. Jurisiology (Jurisprudence) (Sheria): What constitutes just and orderly governance?
31. Mariology (Bikira Maria): How well does the study of Mary, the mother of Jesus, her immaculate conception and assumption to Heaven relate to other doctrines of the faith, such as the nature of Jesus, redemption, intercession and grace?
32. Matrimoniology (Ndoa): Heterosexual marriage provides the social and economic framework for the basic relationship between a man and a woman, and it promotes solidarity among an extended family. Various forms of marriage are governed by the proscription and permissiveness of cultures. The four kinds of marriage commonly recognized are monogamy, in which one man and one woman are joined; polygyny, in which one man is married to more than one woman; polyandry, in which one woman is married to more than one man; and group marriage, in which both sexes are joined to more than one partner. Both group marriage and polyandry are regarded by anthropologists as rare. What should be marriage and which human community should count as one?
33. Meriology (Kitu kizima na sehemu zake): What is the nature of the relationships between a whole and its parts?
34. Mythology (Visasili): What is the nature of myhtologies and what role do they play in human life?
35. Naratology (Masimulizi): What is the nature of narratives and metanarratives and what role do they play in human life?
36. Organismology (uoganizimalia): What is organismality/organicity and what is it note? Given that an organism is a social, mechanical or biological compound thing whose totality and parts manifest mutual influence and interaction toward a given telos, what are the similarities and differences between social organisms, mechanical organisms and biological organisms?
37. Ontology (Kikonyo cha uhalisia): What is primary reality?
38. Paterology (Mungu Baba): What is the nature of God the Father, the first person of Godhead, and how does he relate to humans and the Godhead?
39. Pathology (Magonjwa): What is the nature of human diseases?
40. Patriarchology (Mfumo dume): What is the origin and nature of patriarchy?
41. Personology (Utu): What is a peprson and who counts as one?
42. Phenomenology (fenomena): What are worldly objects and events from the perspective of the spectator?
43. Physicology (physics) (fizikia): What is matter and how is it related to energy?
44. Pneumatology (Roho Mtakatifu): What is the nature of God the Holy Spirit, the third person of Godhead, and how does he relate to humans and the Godhead?
45. Politology (uongozi wa nchi): What is the best way to organize a political community?
46. Ponerology (Ubaya): What is the origin and nature of world evils?
47. Praxiology (Kupanga, kutekeleza, na kupima utekelezaji): What is an effective and efficient approach for framing plans, executing and reviewing them?
48. Psychology (Mind) (King'amuzi chenye akili na utashi): What makes me a person?
49. Sacramentology (Sakramenti): What is the origin and nature of a sacrament?
50. Semiology (Alama): What is the nature of the relationship between the sign, the signified, and the signification process?
51. Sexology (Ujinsia): What is the nature of human sexuality and why is it important in human life?
52. Sociology (Jamii): How do we live in community with one another?
53. Somatology (Tabia za magimba): What are the properties of physical bodies and how do they explain the relationships between bodies, time and space? The following are the known properties of matter: figure, divisibility, indestructability, porosity, compressibility, dilatability, mobility, inertia, attraction, repulsion, polarity, elasticity, extension, impenetrability and irreplicability. The latter three properties are more relevant to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, asserts that, after consecration prayer, the body of Jesus Christ, who is in heaven, is truly, really, wholly and substantially present in every consecrated host wherever it may be located on earth. These Catholic claims contradict the somatological principles of impenetrability and irreplicability of bodies. Since the 16 century during the Reformation the Protestant opposed them and argued that the consecration process was a symbolical and not literal process. The Protestants avioided the risk of being labelled cannibalists, while the Catholic Church consistently embraces it until today. Which doctrine of the Eucharist is more rational and closer to truth as seen by God?
54. Soteriology (Wokovu/Ustawi): What is human welfare/salvation?
55. Technology (Tekinolojia): “What are the positive and negative impacts of modern technical and industrial innovations for meeting human needs and desires and how can they be balanced?
56. Teliology (Sarafu ya uhalisia na telosia): What is the relationship between potentiality, actuality, possession, deprivation, and privation?
57. Thanatology (Kifo): What is the origin and the nature of death?
58. Thaumatology (miujiza): What is the origin and nature of miracles?
59. Theology (Miungu): What is the nature of gods including the god called God? Questions about arguments: Are there persuasive arguments that God exists? Are there persuasive arguments that God does not exist? Are there persuasive arguments that we should suspend judgement about whether God exists? Questions about reason and rationality: Can one reasonably or rationally believe that God exists? Can one reasonably or rationally believe that God does not exist? Can one reasonably or rationally believe that we may or should suspend judgement about whether God exists? Questions about divine attributes: What are the necessary and sufficient properties of individuation does God have, if God exists?
60. Trinitology (Utatu wa Mungu mmoja): What is the nature of the relationship between God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and the Godhead as understood within the context of Christianity? Can Christian theologians solve the following Trinitarian puzzles, and if yes, how: modalism puzzle, tritheism puzzle, subordination puzzle, procession puzzle, self-creation puzzle, divine triunity puzzle, perichoresis puzzle, and person–nature puzzle?

Kama maswali haya yakijibiwa vizuri, basi, tutaweza kuona jinsi ambavyo dunia ya leo imejaa mseto wa itikadi zisizosikilizana kwa kiasi kikubwa, baadhi zikiwa na mikanganyiko ya kimantiki na pia mikanganyiko ya kimetafizikia.

X. SABABU ZA MIGONGANO YA KIITIKADI

Ni rai yangu kwamba, ndani ya itikadi Katoliki, kuna mikanganyiko ya kimantiki na mikanganyiko ya kimetafizikia inayopaswa kuondolewa ili kulinusuru Kanisa dhidi ya mmomonyoko wa waumini kwa sababu hizi. Mikanganyiko hii huzalkisha mgyiko hii huzalisha migongano kati ya itikadi moja na itikadi nyingine.

Profesa George(2001), ameandika kwa kirefu kuhusu migongano ya kiitikadi inayojitokeza kutokana na maisha ya watu katika jamii zenye mseto wa itikadi nyingi.

George(2001) anapendekeza kwamba, migongano ya kiitikadi (clashes of worldviews) ndani ya Utamaduni wa Magharibi ni jambo la kawaida zaidi kuliko migongano kati ya Tamaduni za Mashariki na Tamaduni za Magharibi.

Kwa maoni yake, tayari ndani ya Utamaduni wa Kimagharibi kuna migongano ya kiitikadi kati ya itikadi zenye majina yanaoishia na kiambishi tamati cha "ism". Mfano ni feminism, communism, socialism, capitalism, liberationism, secularism, catholicism, anglicanism, lutheranism, na liberalism.

Kwa pamoja anarejea baadhi ya itikadi hizi kama "liberal secularism" au “secularist orthodoxy” kwa ajili ya kuzitofautisha na itikadi ya "Christian Orthodoxy" inayofuatwa na makundi kama vile Wayahudi, Wapentekoste, na Wahafidhina Katoliki.

Lengo la George katika kitabu hiki ni kuweka wazi msimamo kwamba, kadiri mafundisho ya kimaadili na kifalsafa kuhusu hulka na matendo ya binadamu yanavyohusika, mtazamo wa Ukristo wa Kihafidhina ni bora kuliko Ukristo wa Kiliberali.

Anadai mkwamba anatumia sababu zinazokubalika katika jukwaa la mijadala ya kirazini, na zenye kuungwa mkono na misahafu. Analitangaza lengo hili kwa maneno yafuatayo:

"I want to show that Christians and other believers are right to defend their positions on key moral issues as rationally superior to the alternatives proposed by secular liberals and those within the religious denominations who have abandoned traditional moral principles in favor of secularist morality. My criticism of secular liberal views is not that they are contrary to faith; it is that they fail the test of reason."(p.7)

George anahitimisha hoja zake kitabuni kwa kusisitiza mambo mawili. Mosi, kwamba, migongano ya kiitikadi kati ya Ukristo wa Kihafidhina na Ukristo wa Kiliberali sio mgogoro wenye sura ya uadui kati ya imani na urazini, bali mnyukano kati ya hoja bora za kirazini na hoja dhaifu za kirazini.

Na pili, kwamba, katika miogoro hii, hoja za Ukristo wa Kihafidhina ni bora kuliko hoja dhaifu za Ukristo wa Kiliberali.

Sio lengo langu hapa kuchambua hoja zake. Lakini nataka kukosoa jambo moja muhimu kusudi mjadala unaoendelea hapa uweze kutazamwa katika urefu na upana wake.

Nakosoa maneno yake kwamba, kwa sehemu kubwa, mgongano wa kiitikdi unatokea kwenye sekta za kiitikadi zinazohusu biology, sexology, matrimoniology, na politology; yaani katika masuala ya uhai, ujinsia, ndoa na nafasi ya mamdhehebu ya kidini katika kutunga sheria za nchi yenye dini zaidi ya moja.

Tatizo ni pana zaidi ya hapo. Kwa hakika, kuna migongano mikubwa zaidi kwenye maeneo mengine zaidi ya 50 mbali na haya maeneo manne aliyoyataja.

Ni bahati mbaya kwamba, hoja zinazohusu uhai wa mimba, uhai wa wagonjwa mahututi, ujinsia tata, na ndoa za jinsia moja, hoja ambazo mara nyingi huambatana na mihemuko, hutumiwa kama nyenzo ya kuzalisha mihemuko miongoni mwa wasikilizaji, na hivyo kuwaziba midomo wakosoaji wenye hoja mbadala na zenye mashiko.

Lakini, ukweli ni kwamba, unaweza kuwaziba midomo watu wote kwa muda mfupi, unaweza kuwaziba midomo watu wachache muda wote, lakini huwezi kuwaziba midomo watu wote muda wote. Ni katika muktadha wa mantiki hii, nakosoa maneno ya profesa George (2001) yafuatayo:

"First, let’s get clear what is at stake in the conflict between Christian (and Jewish and to a large extent Islamic) morality and the secularist orthodoxy. The issues immediately in play have MAINLY, though not exclusively, to do with sexuality, the transmitting and taking of human life, and the place of religion and religiously informed moral judgment in public life."(p.11) (emphasis by capitalisation and underlining is mine)

Nitaeleza ukosoaji wangu kwa njia ya mifano kadhaa, kwa kuzingatia kambi mbili za kiitikadi zinazopendekezwa na George (2001), yaani, Itikadi ya Ukristo wa KIhafidhina na Itikadi ya Ukristo wa Kiliberali.

Kwa vile Itikadi ya Ukristo wa Kiliberali ni kabila lenye koo nyingi, nitatumia koo mbili kama wawakilishi, yaani ukoo wa "deism" na ukoo wa "naturalism."

Na kwa ajili hii nitafananisha na kutofautisha itikadi hizi mbili kwa kutumia maswali yafuatayo:

(1) Ontology: What is prime reality? (2) Cosmology: What is the nature of the cosmos, that is, the world around us? (3) Anthropology: What is a human being? (4) Thanatology: What happens to a person at death? (5) Epistemology: Why is it possible to know anything at all? (6) Ethicology: How do we know what is right and wrong? (7) Historiology: What is the meaning of human history? (Sire 2009: 22-24)

Kwa upande mmoja, kama mwale wa uhalisia utatua kwenye prizimu ya Itikadi ya Ukristo wa KIhafidhina (Conservative Christianity), basi upande wa pili kutatokea miale mchomozo yenye kuonyesha ukweli ufuatao:

(1) Prime reality is the infinite, personal God revealed in the Holy Scriptures. This God is triune, transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign, and good. (2) External reality is the cosmos God created ex-nihilo to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system. (3) Human beings are created in the image of God and thus possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, gregariousness and creativity. (4) Human beings can know both the world around them and God himself because God has built into them the capacity to do so and because he takes an active role in communicating with them. (5) For each person death is either the gate to life with God and his people or the gate to eternal separation from the only thing that will ultimately fulfill human aspirations. (6) Ethics is transcendent and is based on the character of God as good (holy and loving). (7) History is linear, a meaningful sequence of events leading to the fulfillment of God’s purposes for humanity. (Sire 2009:25-46)

Na kwa upande mwingine, mwale wa uhalisia ukipenya kwenye prizimu ya itikadi ya Ukristo wa Kiliberali (LIberal Christianity), kama inavyowakilishwa na ukoo wa "deism", huenda ikaonyesha miale mchomozo ifuatayo:

(1) A transcendent God, as a First Cause, created the universe but then left it to run on its own. God is thus not immanent, not triune, not fully personal, not sovereign over human affairs, not providential. (2) The cosmos God created is determined, because it is created as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system; no miracle is possible. (3) Human beings, though personal, are a part of the clockwork of the universe. (4) Human beings may or may not have a life beyond their physical existence. (5) Through our innate and autonomous human reason and the methods of science, we can not only know the universe but we can infer at least something of what God is like. The cosmos, this world, is understood to be in its normal state; it is not fallen or abnormal. (6) Ethics is intuitive or limited to general revelation; because the universe is normal, it reveals what is right. (7) History is linear, for the course of the cosmos was determined at creation. Still the meaning of the events of history remains to be understood by the application of human reason to the data unearthed and made available to historians. (Sire 2009: 47-65).

Ulinganisho mdogo tu huu hapa unatosha kuonyesha kwamba kuna bonde la ufa kubwa sana kati ya Itikadi ya Ukristo wa Kihafidhina na Itikadi ya Ukristo wa Kiliberali, hata kabla ya kuongelea uhai, ujinsia, ndoa na nafasi ya dini katika majukwaa ya umma.

Kwa ajili ya kuweka msisitizo kwenye mpasuko huu katika ngazi ya ontology, cosmology, anthropology, thanatology, ethicology, epistemology, na historiology, naongeza udadavuzi wa ukoo mwingine wa Itikadi ya Ukristo wa Kiliberali uitwao "naturalism."

Kama mwale wa uhalisia utapenya kwenye kioo cha prizimu ya "naturalism", huenda miale mchomozo yenye kutoa ujumbe ufuatao itatokea:

(1) Prime reality is matter. Matter exists eternally and is all there is. Neither God, gods nor spirits exist. (2) The cosmos exists as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system. (3) Human beings are complex machines; personality is an interrelation of chemical and physical properties we do not yet fully understand. (4) Death is extinction of personality and individuality. No life beyond the grave. (5) Through our innate and autonomous human reason, including the methods of science, we can know the universe. The cosmos, including this world, is understood to be in its normal state. (6) Ethics is related only to human beings, without any reference to God, gods or spirits. (7) History is a linear stream of events linked by cause and effect but without an overarching purpose. (Sire 2009: 66-93).

Kwa hiyo, sasa tunaweza kuelewa tamko kwamba, kukosekana kwa "Kanisa la Kisinodi" kunatokana na ukosefu wa "safari ya pamoja" kwa sababu ya ukosefu wa "imani ya pamoja," imani ambayo hapa nimeiita "itikadi."

Ndio kusema kwamba, watu walioko nje ya barabara inayotumiwa na waumini wanaotembea kama "Kanisa la Kisinodi" wako nje kwa kuwa wanayo itikadiambayo, kwa kiasi fulani, ni tofauti.

Yaani, kama tukiongelea Kanisa la Kisinodi ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki, hii maana yake ni kwamba, kwa wale walioko nje ya Kanisa hili, ama itikadi Katoliki imewakataa au wao wmeikataa au bado wanaitafakari.

XI. MIKANGANYIKO YA KIITIKADI CHANZO CHA MMOMONYOKO WA KANISA

Kwa sababu ya utitiri wa itikadi katika jamii, baadhi ya watu wanapata sababu ya kuchagua na kubagua kambi za kiitikdai. Kwa mfano, tafiti zinaonyesha kuwa kuna mmomonyoko wa wafuasi ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki (dissaffiliation) kwa sababu mbalimbali.

Kwa mfano, Kanisa Katoliki linapoteza wafuasi kila kukicha. Karibu 13% ya Wamarekani wanajitambulisha kama “Wakatoliki Wastaafu”. Kati yao, 71% wanasema waliondoka Kanisa Katoliki kwa sababu "ilitokea tu." (Manning 2018).

Lakini, kutakuwepo na sababu za msingi zaidi. Kwa hiyo, swali la kiutafiti ni hili hapa: Je, data za kitafiti zinafichua sababu gani za ukengeufu dhidi ya kanuni za imani ya Kikristo kama inavyoeleweka katika mapokeo?

Swali hili linaweza kujibiwa kwa mujibu wa nguzo nne za imani ya Kikristo. Nguzo hizo ni maarifa ya imani, maisha ya sakramenti, kushi maadili, na maisha ya sala.

Katika muundo wa maswali, mambo haya manne yanamaanisha maswali ya kitafiti yafuatayo:

• (1) Ujuzi wa imani: Je, watu wanaondoka kwenye Kanisa Katoliki kwa sababu hawaelewi imani yake?
• (2) Mkanganyiko wa kimantiki katika imani: Je watu wanaondoka kwenye Kanisa Katoliki kwa sababu imani hiyo inaambatana na mkanganyiko wa kimantiki?
• (3) Mkanganyiko wa kimetafizikia katika imani: Je watu wanaondoka kwenye Kanisa Katoliki kwa sababu imani hiyo inaambatana na mkanganyiko wa kimetafizikia?
• (4) Maisha ya sakramenti: Je, kuna upungufu wa wazi wa ubatizo, ndoa, na mahudhurio ya ibada ya kila juma?
• (5) Kuishi kwa mujibu wa imani: Je, Wakatoliki hukubali mazoea ambayo yanashutumiwa rasmi na mamlaka ya kufundisha ya Kanisa kuwa ni makosa ya kimaadili? na
• (6) Maisha ya sala: Je, idadi ya Wakatoliki wanaosali angalau mara moja kwa siku inaongezeka au la?

Kuhusu swali la kwanza, takwimu zilizopo kuhusu mabadiliko katika viwango vya maarifa kuhusu Ukatoliki, zinaonyesha kwamba, wanafunzi wa Kikatoliki wa siku hizi wana maarifa zaidi kuliko vizazi vilivyotangulia. Wakatoliki wanazidi kuongeza ujuzi siku baada ya siku. Kwa hiyo, ushahidi uliopo hautoi uhalali wa kutosha kwa hitimisho kwamba watu wanaacha imani ya Kikatoliki kwa sababu hawaielewi.

Kuhusu swali la pili, ushahidi unaonyesha kuwa, sababu kubwa inayosababisha ongezeko la "Wakatoliki Wastaafu" ni mkanyanyiko wa kimantiki na (logical contradiction) uliomo katika mafundisho mengi ambayo ni sehemu ya itikadi Katoliki.

Kimantiki, Kanuni ya Kutojipinga kwa Ukweli wa Kimantiki (Law of Logical Non-Contradiction) inasema kuwa, kauli ile ile moja haiwezi kusema ukweli na kuupinga ukweli huo wakati huo huo na katika mazingira yale yale. Branson (2014) anasema yafuatayo kuhusu dhana ya mkanyanyiko wa kimantiki ninayoiongelea hapa:

"A set of propositions is explicitly inconsistent if and only if, at least, one member of the set just is the denial or negation of, at least, one member of the set. A set of propositions is formally inconsistent if and only if an explicit contradiction can be derived from its members using only the rules of ordinary logic. A set of propositions is implicitly inconsistent if and only if adding some necessarily true proposition(s) to it yields a formally inconsistent set." (Branson 2014:10)

Kuhusu swali la tatu, ushahidi unaonyesha kuwa, sababu nyingine kubwa inayosababisha ongezeko la "Wakatoliki Wastaafu" ni mkanyanyiko wa kimetafizikia (metaphysical contradiction) uliomo katika mafundisho mengi ambayo ni sehemu ya itikadi Katoliki.

Kanuni ya Kutojipinga kwa Ukweli wa Kimetafizikia (Law of Metaphysical Non-Contradiction) inasema kuwa, kitu kile kile X hakiwezi kuwa na sifa Y na kukosa kuwa na sifa Y wakati huo huo na katika muktadha ule ule.

Yaani, mkanganyiko wa kimetafikia unahusu anatomia ya uhalisia ulioko nje ya akili za watu. Kuhusu jambo hili, Tahko (2009) anasema maneno haya:

"...the law of non-contradiction (LNC) is a metaphysical rather than a logical principle... We will, however, be better off with one of Aristotle’s many formulations of the LNC, such as, 'the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect.' When put like this, the principle appears considerably deeper, as it clearly states a restriction that concerns things rather than just propositions. We can thus avoid a prolonged discussion about the nature of propositions... At its simplest, the metaphysical interpretation of LNC amounts to this: the entities of the mind-independent reality are plausibly governed by some sort of principles (as otherwise there would be no order in our experience of them), that is, there are some constraints as to what kind of properties a certain kind of entity can and cannot have, and further, some of these properties are mutually exclusive. For instance, a particle cannot both have and not have a charge at the same time, or an object cannot be both green and red all over at the same time. It seems that reality just is such that it conforms to the law of noncontradiction." (p.32-33)

Kwa mfano, sifa moja ya sayari ya dunia ni ukweli kwamba hii ni sayari ya tatu katika mfumo wa jua. Sayari hii haiwezi kuwa sayari ya tatu na isiwe sayari ya tatu ndani ya mfumo ule ule wa jua.

Kwa hiyo, mkanganyiko wa kimetafizikia utakuwa ni madai kwamba sayasi ya dunia ni sayari ya tatu na sio sayari ya tatu katika mfumo wa jua.

Kuhusu swali la nne hapo juu, yaani maadhimisho ya sakramenti, tafiti zinaonyesha kuwa nkuna kupungua kwa ubatizo, ndoa, na mahudhurio ya ibada ya kila Jmapili.

Kuhusiana na swali la tano, data ya uchunguzi zinadhihirisha kwamba, Wakatoliki wengi wanaidhinisha desturi zifuatazo ambazo zinashutumiwa rasmi na mamlaka ya Kanisa: adhabu ya kifo, matumizi ya kingamimba, mauaji ya huruma, talaka, ngono kabla ya ndoa, na kadhalika.

Lakini, mbali na masuala haya ya kimaadili na mambo mengine ya kuishi maisha ya imani kama vile zaka na ushiriki wa parokiani, Wakatoliki wanaonyesha dalili za kujitolea kidini katika baadhi ya maeneo lakini si mengine.

Hatimaye, kuhusu swali la sita, yaani sala, takwimu zinaonyesha kwamba, asilimia ya Wakatoliki wanaosali angalau mara moja kwa siku inaongezeka. Kwa hiyo, mabadiliko yanatokea duniani, hayawafanyi raia kuwa mbali zaidi na Mungu.

Lakini, kwa ujumla, mabadiliko katika imani na tabia za Kikatoliki zinazoonekana katika data ya sosholojia kwa hakika hufichua ukengeufu dhidi ya kanuni za imani ya Kikristo kama zinavyoeleweka kimapokeo.

Hasa hasa, kupungua kwa wazi kwa adhimisho la kisakramenti na kuongezeka uasi dhidi ya mafundisho rasmi ya kimaadili juu ya masuala fulani ya maadili kunaelezea kwa nini Ukatoliki unachukuliwa na wengine kuwa unamomonyoka.

Hata hivyo, kuongezeka kwa shughuli katika maeneo mengine, kama vile ushiriki wa parokiani, maombi, na kujiweka karibu na Mungu kwa njia ya sala binafsi, kunapingana na masimulizi ya wananadharia ya kisekulari kwamba dini inaporomoka kwa kufuata mstari ulionyooka kwa sababu ya changamoto za ulimwengu wa kisayansi.

Kwa ufupi, Wakatoliki wengi hawaoni tena maana katika sakramenti au kuona umuhimu wa baadhi ya mafundisho ya Kanisa kwa maisha yao ya kila siku. Ijapokuwa nia yao ya kuendelea kuwa na uhusiano na Mungu iko pale pale, hawa wakatoliki wastaafu, wanaachana na dini kama mfumo wa kimapokeo wa kuwaunganisha watu ambao uliwategemeza mababu zao.

Kinachohitajika hapa ni ama kubadilisha itikadi au kubadilisha mawazo ya watu walioko nje ya Kanisa Katoliki au kubadili vyote viwili kwa namna fulani.

XII. SABABU YA SINODI KUITISHWA

Ni katika mazingira haya ya mmomonyoko wa wafuasi kwa sababu za kiitikadi, Papa Francis ameandaa dodoso la Sinodi ya 16 ya Maaskofu na kuuliza swali lifuatalo, kati ya mengine:

"Ni hatua gani ambazo Roho Mtakatifu anatualika kuchukua ili tuweze [kusafiri pamoja bila kumwacha binadamu yeyote nyuma na hatimaye] kukua wakati wa 'safari ya pamoja'”?

Maneno yaliyo kwenye mabano ya mraba, yaani "kusafiri pamoja bila kumwacha mtu yeyote nyuma na hatimaye", ni yangu.

Ni kwa ajili ya kufafanua swali hili, watu kama vile Robert Wuthnow (1993) wameandika kitabu kinachojadili changamoto zinazolikabili Kanisala Karne ya 21, kwa kuzigawanya katika makundi makubwa yafuatayo: changamoto za kitaasisi, kimaadili, kiimani, kisiasa, na kiutamaduni.

Lakini, katika andiko hili nimejaribu kupanua wigo wa matatizo anayoyajadili Wuthnow (1993) ili kuonyesha kwa mpigo matawi yote ya changamoto husika ndani ya mti wa uhalisia kuhusu Mungu, Binadamu, Jamii na Ulimwengu baki.

Kwa ujumla, kuna mageuzi makubwa inabidi kufanyika ili kukamilisha ndoto ya Papa Francis aliyeanzisha mchakato huu.

Ni mageuzi ambayo yatafanyika katikati ya mseto wa itikadi anwai. Baadhi zikiwa ni itikadi za kidini wakati zingine sio itikadi za kidini, kama tulivyoona hapo awali.

XIII. HITIMISHO NA MAPENDEKEZO

Papa Francis ameanzisha utafiti mkubwa katika wakati mwafaka. Ni wakati ambapo minyukano ya kiitikadi duniani imepamba moto kwa kiwango ambacho kinalitaka Kanisa Katoliki kujitathmini kwa namna ambayo italiacha imara zaidi katika ti ya mawimbi hayo ya kiitikadi.

Yafaa Kanisa Katoliki litumie fursa hii kufanya tathmini ya itikadi yake katika maeneo yote kuhusiana na mti wa uhalisia kuhusu Mungu, Binadamu, Jamii na Ulimwengu baki.

Yaani, Kanisa lisafishe nyumba yake kwa kufagia, kudeki na kukarabati vyumba vyote vilivyomo katika chujio la itikadi lente vipengele 60 kama lilivyojadiliwa hapo juu.

Na kama majawabu yatakayokusanywa yatafanyiwa kazi, yanaweza kuleta mabadiliko makubwa ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki kutokana na msukumo ulioanzia ndani ya Kanisa lenyewe. Hoja zangu, kipengele kwa kipengele, kuhusiana na vipengele 60 nilivyotaja hapo juu zitawekwa chini ya uzi huu hatua kwa hatua kulingana na kasi ya utafiti itakavyoruhusu.

Hatimaye natarajia kuona Kanisa Jipya baada ya sinodi ya 2023, yaani Kanisa linalofanya mambo yake kirazini, pasipo mikanganyiko ya kimantiki, migongano ya kimetafizikia wala mikanganyiko ya kimaadili.

XIV. MAREJEO MUHIMU

Kwa ajili ya kuandika makala hii nimetumia marejeo mengi, lakini yaliyo muhimu zaidi ni haya yafuatayo, na mengi nimeambatanisha nakala tepe kwa ajili ya kujibu changamoto za kiepistemolojia kutoka kwa wasomaji:

1. Alexander R. Pruss (2013), One Body: An Essay in Christian Sexual Ethics (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press) (Attached)
2. Beau Branson (2014), The Logical Problem of the Trinity, A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
3. Bernard Lonergan (1956), Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (New York: Philosophical Library Inc.).
4. Brian Dive (2020), Accountability and Leadership in the Catholic Church: What Needs to Be Improved (UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing). (Attached)
5. Brian Walsh and J. Richard Middleton (1984), The Transforming Vision: Shaping a
   Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity).
6. CAO Qingyun(2015), "Aristotle on the Unity of Composite Substance," Front. Philos. China. 10.3: 457-473.
7. David A. Noebel and Jeff Myers (2015), Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews,1st Ed. (Manitou Springs, Colorado: Summit Press, 2015). (Attached)
8. James W. Sire (2009), The Universe Next Door: The Worldview Catalogue (InterVarsity Press). (Attached)
9. James Olthuis (1989), “On Worldviews,” In: Paul A. Marshall, Sander Griffioen, and Richard J. Mouw, (Eds.), Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science (Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1989), pp. 26-40, at 29.
10. James W. Sire (2015), Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept, 2nd Edition (Illinois: InterVarsity Press) (Attached)
11. John Rawls(1987), "The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus," Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7.1:1-25.
12. Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosenkrantz (1998), "On The Unity Of Compound Things: Living And Non-Living," Ratio 11.3: 289-315. (Attached)
13. Kabuye Uthman Sulaiman(2018), "Meaning, Classification, Epistemological Foundation and Significance of Worldview," Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences," 6.7:1318-1327.
14. Manning, P. R. (2018). Disintegrating Worldviews and the Future of Catholic Education: Addressing the Deep Roots of Catholic Disaffiliation. Journal of Catholic Education, 21(2): 26-52.
15. Rebekah Johnston (2013), "Marriage and the Metaphysics of Bodily Union: Framing the Marriage Debate," Social Theory and Practice, 288-313, at 296-98.
16. Robert P. George (2001), The Clash Of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books). (Attached)
17. Robert Wuthnow (1993), Christianity in the Twenty-first Century: Reflections on the Challenges Ahead (New York: Oxford University Press). (Attached).
18. Tuomas E. Tahko (2009), "The Law of Non-Contradiction as a Metaphysical Principle," The Australasian Journal of Logic, 7:32-47.
19. William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith (1995), Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: OUP). (Attached)

Kichwa cha mada kinasema:-​

Dodoso la maswali 50 Kuelekea Sinodi ya 16 ya Maaskofu Mwaka 2023: Kanisa Katoliki Linapaswa Kutumia Zana Gani Katika Kuzisoma Alama za Nyakati?​

Kuna zana mbili:-

1. Kanisa Katoliki likubali kwenda na Huduma 5 za Kanisa (Uchungaji, Uinjilisti, Ualimu, Utume na Unabii). Hivi sasa huduma za Unabii na Utume zimeachwa (Utume unachukuliwa kama general term ambapo hata Mwanakwaya anafanya Utume). Bila huduma ya Unabii siyo rahisi kusoma Alama za Nyakati, ndiyo maana hivi sasa haliwezi kusoma Alama za Nyakati.

2. Kutokutukuza dhana ya Mariology vs Christology. Hivi sasa mfumo wa kuabudu unampa Maria utakatifu over Yesu.

Kutoka.20:1-6
1 Mungu akanena maneno haya yote akasema.

2 Mimi ni Bwana, Mungu wako, niliyekutoa katika nchi ya Misri, katika nyumba ya utumwa.

3 Usiwe na miungu mingine ila mimi.

4 Usijifanyie sanamu ya kuchonga, wala mfano wa kitu cho chote kilicho juu mbinguni, wala kilicho chini duniani, wala kilicho majini chini ya dunia.

5 Usivisujudie wala kuvitumikia; kwa kuwa mimi, Bwana, Mungu wako, ni Mungu mwenye wivu; nawapatiliza wana maovu ya baba zao, hata kizazi cha tatu na cha nne cha wanichukiao.

6 nami nawarehemu maelfu elfu wanipendao, na kuzishika amri zangu.

Dhana ya Mariology inakataliwa kwenye kifungu hicho.

Yohana.14:6
Akamwambia, Mimi ndimi njia, na kweli, na uzima; mtu haji kwa Baba, ila kwa njia ya mimi.

Hicho kifungu kinatufundisha kwamba dhana ya Christology inapaswa kuwa juu ya dhana ya Mariology.

Kanisa liondokane na sanamu ya kumfanya Maria kuwa nafsi ya 4 ya Mungu (Unne Mtakatifu) e.g.

1. Baba,

2. Mwana,

3. Roho Mtakatifu,

4. Maria.

Sasa badala ya kufuata descending order lenyewe linafuata ascending order.

Mungu ana wivu, hivyo siyo rahisi Kanisa kukirimiwa uwezo wa kusoma alama za nyakati katika mazingira haya.

 

[The Worst]

True ushuhuda ni mwingi.kuna mjane nabii alimshauri auze nyumba akauza milioni 150 nabii akiwa Dalali pale pale nabii akachukua yake milioni 15 akampiga mzima mama akamkopeshe milioni 3 akajumlisha na zile 15 akavuta crown mpya ya kutembelea.

Mpaka huzuni yani!!!

Kinamama ndo waathirika wa hawa so called manabii/mitume sijui kwanini huwa hawajifunzi kwa wenzao waliokwishapata madhara tayari.

 

[Pascal Mayalla]

View attachment 2060577
Papa Francis akiwa mimbari

Mkuu Mama Amon , thanks for this, hii ni kazi ya kitume!, ubarikiwe sana!.
P