God and the universe

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus:

The problem is ALL of it is from Church teaching. Nothing is made up. It’s a direct copy, with a couple of minor typos. No words added. No words were changed. There are no suppositions. The complete two volume set is still supported by the entire Church. There’s not one single thing that could be pointed to as being even on the fringe of Catholic teaching. It is the Official Teaching of the Catholic Church. Period. End of sentence.

So, I’m really not sure what you’re talking about. It’s all verifiable. The books have the necessary Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs. I can’t imagine what else you’re looking for? If your ideas are different, they’re not Catholic ideas.

God bless,
jd

You are confusing the reasons for the faith with the Doctrine of the Faith. The " reasons " given in support of the faith are not part of the doctrine. As one of the popes remarked " St Thomas is a saint, but Thomism ( i.e. the philosophy of St Thomism ) has not been canonized. Now the philosophy of ST. Thomas has been and continues to be a valuable support in defence of much of Church doctrine but are not themselves a part of that doctrine - you do not have to adhere to these reasons ( i.e. the arguments ) he offers in defense of the faith. The same can be said for the " reasons " offered by other philosophers, scientists, etc. Personally I have not read Spearman, I may never have the time, my next project is to read Aquinas by Edward Feser and the commentary on St Thomas by Fr. Reginald Garrrigou- Lagrange. Their arguments and those of St. Augustine and other great thinkers of the Church are not part of Doctrine either but are valuable as defenses of that Doctrine.

 

[JDaniel]

Unfortunately this is not at all helpful, and simply points out the Linguistic conundrum, which is frequently committed by theologians. Redefining terms, which in the regular use of language, and understanding, are used to mean one thing, and saying in their one special instance actually mean something else, and is ultimately a form of Special Pleading. An “action” procedes in every other use of the word, (an thus a priori requires spacetime), in which humans use it. Therefore if one wishes to create a different category of human understanding or use of the word, the only intellectually honest thing to do is to cook up a different word, instead of attempting to use a word which actually means something else, every other time it is used. If one wishes to use a word which means “activity which is not really activity”, (such as attempting to create a distinction without a difference with the words “substance”, and “accident”), the least we should do is be honest about it, and use a different linguistic string.

Jason:

Did you intend this for this thread? If so, could you be specific? Or, were you intentionally circling around the shrubbery?

“Spacetime,” let’s see. Oh, that’s that time that transpires whenever one travels back in time. Got it.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You are confusing the reasons for the faith with the Doctrine of the Faith. The " reasons " given in support of the faith are not part of the doctrine. As one of the popes remarked " St Thomas is a saint, but Thomism ( i.e. the philosophy of St Thomism ) has not been canonized. Now the philosophy of ST. Thomas has been and continues to be a valuable support in defence of much of Church doctrine but are not themselves a part of that doctrine - you do not have to adhere to these reasons ( i.e. the arguments ) he offers in defense of the faith. The same can be said for the " reasons " offered by other philosophers, scientists, etc. Personally I have not read Spearman, I may never have the time, my next project is to read Aquinas by Edward Feser and the commentary on St Thomas by Fr. Reginald Garrrigou- Lagrange. Their arguments and those of St. Augustine and other great thinkers of the Church are not part of Doctrine either but are valuable as defenses of that Doctrine.

Linus:

Just read St. Thomas. The volumes provided in The Great Books are not difficult reading at all. I’ve noticed some wording confusions in several of the online translations that seem not to be in the Great Books’ versions. These two volumes were translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, revised by Daniel J. Sullivan. (Ah, well, that explains it: an Irishman! )

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus:

The problem is ALL of it is from Church teaching. Nothing is made up. It’s a direct copy, with a couple of minor typos. No words added. No words were changed. There are no suppositions. The complete two volume set is still supported by the entire Church. There’s not one single thing that could be pointed to as being even on the fringe of Catholic teaching. It is the Official Teaching of the Catholic Church. Period. End of sentence.

So, I’m really not sure what you’re talking about. It’s all verifiable. The books have the necessary Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs. I can’t imagine what else you’re looking for? If your ideas are different, they’re not Catholic ideas.

God bless,
jd

I understand exactly what you are saying and I’m saying that your idea of " Church Teaching " is wrong. Read what I said again and think about it. Consider the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. There you will find the basic doctrine of the faith. But you will notice that the " reasons " given by St Thomas and other Theologians and Philosophers in support of Church teaching are not specifically mentioned. Now Spearman may be a fine philosopher, as I said I am totally ignorant of him, but his philosophy, or whatever you wish to call it, is not Church doctrine and it is wrong to pass it off as church doctrine. His conclusions, as quoted in your extract, are fine and represent Church doctrine as far as I can see. But the way he got to them do not represent Church doctrine ( i.e. the reasons he gave in support of those conclusions). Why this is important is that the Church does not want to get tied down to specific metaphysical or scientic reasoning because they may be demonstrated to be wrong at some furture date. However the Truth about God, Christ, the way of salvation, morality the Church knows through Revealation, prue and simple. The Church has nothing in its doctrine that has not been Revealed by God.