J
Jshy
Guest
Yes but non of that is saying that a body can possibly be a substance . It’s only part of a substance the body itself is not a substance or even a incomplete substance . But part of a substance or part of a incomplete substance if separated from the soul. So it all comes back to a pop infallibly using substance the wrong way , which is probably not even a serious thing and doesn’t affect infallibility. Or you can go the other route and say he was right by using the term that way and that Aquinas and later teachings are wrong. But that also would be a problem because the church took hylomorphism and ran with it and even defined it as you showed . ( your fun to talk to by the way , very smart) I’m new to the church still . So I’m just figuring all this out . It makes me wonder how many more possible supposed contradictions could be in infallible definitions . But I’m sure that they are not Truly contradictions , just like the Bible . A lot of people say that it’s wrong or in error but it’s not. That’s why I like using the speech act theory a lot . ( illocutionary meaning be locutionary ) and from what I know a pope is only infallible when defining morals and faith. But I’m not sure if that includes infallible terms or words to describe the matter of the error free faith or not .I guess I would have to talk to a theologian about that Because the point that Adeodatus was making is infallible but does that mean his words he used to describe the infallible teachings have to be infallible also? That’s a interesting question and I wonder if there are more instances like this .
Last edited: