Syncretistic Catholicism

another minority report

Syncretistic Catholicism where any Anglican, Episcopal, Roman & Orthodox

consensus informs core beliefs & divergences are received as valid theological
opinions

All Persons are Constituted by Both Acts &

Relations, Subjectively & Intersubjectively,
Quidditatively & Expressively

All persons are constituted both subjectively & intersubjectively, which is to

say, by both their entitative acts & their interpersonal relations.

Metaphysically, these subjective acts & intersubjective relations are,

constitutively, equiprimordial.

Entitative acts are variously self-determinative.

Per the primacy of persons, paterologically, the Father self-determines, ur-

kenotically, both the divine essence & divine relations (Otherings or
Thounesses).
Christologically, the Son self-determines, kenotically, both His secondary
essence – His ex Deo human nature – & His cosmotheandric relations
(otherings or thounesses).

Anthropologically, we co-self-determine – not our primary nature, as Christ-

images, but – our secondary natures, as Christ-likenesses, by how we
kenotically & synergistically manifest, expressively, what we are,
constitutively.

The kenotic self-transcendent dynamic that constitutively orders all subjects,

“what“ever their primary natures, to intersubjective relations, situates all
persons on transcendental horizons, which is to say, open to the emergent
intersubjective novelties that will emerge from “how” each person co-self-
determines to express their love.

These horizons & novelties represent analogous ad intra & ad extra divine
perichoreses, which per an emergentist logic are not quidditatively reducible
in constitutive terms of “what“nesses. Their intelligibility derives, rather, from
the distinct “how“nesses by which each person uniquely manifests “what”
they are and so reveal “who” they are in the context of their intersubjective
relationality.

In emergentist accounts of determinate being, both the existential acts that

reduce essential potencies of whatness (primary natures) and efficient –
formal acts (volitional or will – intellect) that reduce im/material & final
potencies of howness (secondary natures) are dynamical. This is to say that,
phylogenetically, essences can evolve and that, ontogenetically, individual’s
can evolve in how they manifest their received (static) primary natures in
intersubjective contexts. This is to recognize that, while “what” one is,
quidditatively, has been determined, “how” one is, expressively, remains
decidedly probabilistic. This is to say that, modally, noncontradiction holds but
excluded middle folds, which means that our range of theophanic final
potencies has been divinely determined, while our specific efficient – formal
or volitional acts have not. This very much brings to mind how I understand
Tom Belt’s Open account.

By properly prescinding from pure necessity to probability for determinate

being, we can avoid the pseudo-tensions that arise from the false dichotomy
of essentialism & nominalism, which represents the obverse sides of the same
bankrupt epistemic – ontic coinage. It’s precisely such a pseudo-tension in
play between Báñezian & Molinist accounts of nature, grace & freedom, all
realities which present in terms of – not all or nothing & either – or, but –
degrees & intensities, ranges & scopes and types & extents.

While any given person, subjectively & entitatively, has a determined primary
nature as gifted per the gratuity of creation, grace operates per one’s
expressive secondary nature, which is synergistically co-self-determined
probabilistically.

In an emergentist metaphysic of intersubjectivity, entitative subjective

whatnesses are determined within discrete but integrally related hierarchical
levels, i.e. per similar horizontal causes (existential acts reducing essential
potencies) and unique personal hownesses are expressed relationally in all
manner of discrete intersubjective novelties. Because those personal
hownesses are volitional, they are synergistically co-self-determined per
distinct, but simultaneous, vertical causes (formal acts reducing final
potencies). Persons thus become increasingly open to further influences (e.g.
obediential potencies) by higher hierarchical levels (e.g. uncreated prevenient
graces).

The analogous perichoreses – Trinitological, Christological, Cosmotheandric &

Theotic – all also have analogous horizontal (natural) & vertical (volitional)
causation dynamics, which vary per nondeterminate, self-determinate &
variously in/determinate beings. It’s precisely per the simultaneity of these
analogous vertical causes  (per their respective horizontal hierarchies) that
our emergentist accounts of emanation & generation, ur-kenosis & kenosis,
can block such inferences as proto-Father, Paterologically, Logos asarkos,
Christologically, and natura pura, cosmotheandrically.

This is all to point out that Jordan Daniel Woods’ defense of Bonaventure’s
emanation account and his Maximian Christological Cosmology, Lonergan’s
conception of vertical finality (levels of consciousness, scale of values &
divine relations analogies), Yong’s Cosmic Spirit (pneumatological theology of
religions) and Bracken & Gelpi’s metaphysics of intersubjectivity (Divine Matrix,
theology of conversion & narrative Maximian Christology) are in many ways,
variously explicitly & implicitly, consistent with Peirce’s phenomenological
modal ontology & pragmatic semiotic realism. I recommend it as a very
felicitous idiom for any systematics.

Sponsored Content
John Sobert Sylvest July 30, 2023 Uncategorized

Syncretistic Catholicism Blog at WordPress.com.