Grand Moff Tarkin, a character from the Star Wars film seems to have appeared in the blogsphere. I grew up on Star Wars. It was the biggest thing when I was a kid. Princess Leia retorts to the effect to one of his inquiries at one point in the film, “The tighters your grasp, the more star systems will slip through your fingers!” (There’s more truth in this I suspect than one might suppose.)
This morning I posted some questions over at Kimel’s blog. I thought I could at least ask questions, but I suppose not. The ultimate Gnostic weapon of prohibition of questions has finally made its appearance. My questions weren’t rude or crass but were in fact part of the historical discussion and on topic. But I suppose in order to assimilate everything to the Monad of the Pope, the Orthodox simply must be silenced. If the Pope speaks, every voice must be quiet.
Of course, what Kimel will create is a decreased or decreasing band of respondents, who will only give him a skewed picture of things. It seems ironic to desire an ecumenical discussion and then prohibit questions from the other side. This simply confirms the old Papal attitude that non-Catholics just need to submit. As I said before, not yet ecumenical.
For your contemplation, here are the questions I asked.
Some questions I have.
What is the dogmatic status of “absolute predestinarianism?” What is say the difference if any between it and say Molina and Thomas?
Why is it that the Eastern Fathers speak of the union with God in terms of the whole human being and Augustine (and Thomas) primarily in terms of union between God and the Soul?
If Catholicism is also committed to the union with God along holistic and Eastern lines, what is the dogmatic status and formal authoritative definition of that union between God and the physical body?
If certain aspects of Augustine’s system had to be purged, in what sense do they qualify as corruptions? And to what degree are doctors of the church theoretically committed to these corruptions like say, absolute predestinarianism?
Why isn’t the language of God causing us to believe no longer problematic for Moeller and Philips?
Is the habitus in us the causal effect of grace and hence different from its cause or is it identical with its cause, which would be the divine essence?
Why do we need to define habitus in terms of power vs impotence regarding humanity in order to stave off Pelagianism?
If the habitus is “produced” by God, is it eternal or in what sense can the divine essence be produced or be a candidate for being class as an effect, since the authors state that “the habitus is the result of this?”