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



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).
 

Attachments



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".
 

Attachments



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.
 
Kufunga ndoa ni bure????
Huwa tunaomba risiti kwanza ya michango hata ubatizo
ni hivo pia!
 
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.
 
Jacobus said:
"THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Before 1517, every Christian was Catholic. As such, today we know that:... The word CATHOLIC means UNIVERSALITY.
Click to expand...

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.
 


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.
 
(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
 
love life live life said:
Kufunga ndoa ni bure????
Huwa tunaomba risiti kwanza ya michango hata ubatizo
ni hivo pia!
Click to expand...
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
 

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.
 

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)
 

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.
 
Kalunya said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mpaka huzuni yani!!!

Kinamama ndo waathirika wa hawa so called manabii/mitume sijui kwanini huwa hawajifunzi kwa wenzao waliokwishapata madhara tayari.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…