M
MPat
Guest
“Form” is not a synonym of “spirit”.
A simple standard example is a statue: it has matter (let’s say, marble) and form (shape). It is impossible to have matter without any form at all.
- Status
A simple standard example is a statue: it has matter (let’s say, marble) and form (shape). It is impossible to have matter without any form at all.
D
dmar198
Guest
And also, form is nonmaterial. Form is spiritual.
J
JimG
Guest
Okay, I think I understand. Aristotle posited matter and form of all objects, even purely material objects. Matter is what the object is made of; form is the essence of the object—that which makes it what it is. The matter of a statue might be bronze or stone. But the form is more than just it’s shape. It is it’s “statueness.” The essence of a rock is to be a rock. But for a rock or a statue, neither the matter nor the form is spirit in the theological sense.
I was thinking of the distinction between material beings and spiritual beings. Matter occupies space. Spirit does not. God and angels are spirit. Human beings are composites of physical matter and immaterial spirit.
I was thinking of the distinction between material beings and spiritual beings. Matter occupies space. Spirit does not. God and angels are spirit. Human beings are composites of physical matter and immaterial spirit.
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Any good thread worth it’s salt always needs at least one picture.
Any good thread worth it’s salt always needs at least one picture.
J
jas84173
Guest
What like there was no immaculate conception?
S
SalamKhan
Guest
I’m not a Christian myself, but Catholics are pretty much supposed to follow Thomas Aquinas in everything except in issues where he is at odds with defined dogma:
Take note especially at what Pope Pius X said, “As we have said, one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things”
The thing is, especially today, hardly anyone follows Thomas Aquinas.
Take note especially at what Pope Pius X said, “As we have said, one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things”
The thing is, especially today, hardly anyone follows Thomas Aquinas.
Last edited:
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Depends on which of St. Thomas’ works you are reading. For example, he affirmed her Immaculate Conception here:
While in his Summa, he stated she did contract original sin, later in life he again affirmed:
I think it would be accurate to say that he was rather conflicted on a matter that had not yet been dogmatically defined yet, but later came to his senses. In any case, on his deathbed he prayed…
So yes, I think he’s a trustworthy teacher of the Catholic faith.
Last edited:
M
midori
Guest
Why not look at something specific he said, and then try to figure out whether it’s believable, rather than making a blanket statement about the writings of someone whose most famous work is over 3,000+ pages long? 
For example, Thomas Aquinas wrote about ensoulment, and his opinions of/understanding of it were very much rooted in Aristotle. And in those days before fancy things like microscopes and genetics and fetal dopplers and the discovery of the human egg came along, the 40/80 day rule was pretty much rooted in what genitalia could be observed in miscarried babies with the naked eye. So don’t rely on him for reproductive science facts or expect to be a proponent of delayed animation— but his opinions that even contraception or abortion prior to ensoulment was wrong is still morally sound.
For example, Thomas Aquinas wrote about ensoulment, and his opinions of/understanding of it were very much rooted in Aristotle. And in those days before fancy things like microscopes and genetics and fetal dopplers and the discovery of the human egg came along, the 40/80 day rule was pretty much rooted in what genitalia could be observed in miscarried babies with the naked eye. So don’t rely on him for reproductive science facts or expect to be a proponent of delayed animation— but his opinions that even contraception or abortion prior to ensoulment was wrong is still morally sound.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Actually, Thomas Aquinas did believe that the Virign Mary was conceived in sin, he just didn’t believe she was born in original sin. There’s a difference.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
N
I think you are reading into Aquinas what you wish he might have thought.
Here is what he actually wrote: (Summa Theologiae III:27:4):
According to you, then, whose sin was Mary “conceived in” if not her own and not in original sin?
If you mean Mary was born into a community and family where original sin was the condition of that community and family, well okay but neither do Aquinas nor the Church teach any different than that.
If you think Mary’s parents actually sinned when they conceived Mary, that would be a pretty outlandish claim and one that you would have to demonstrate. It contradicts what Aquinas says that “the honor of the parents reflects on the child,” so you couldn’t use Aquinas to support your position.
So what exactly is the “difference” that you are pointing to?
I think you are reading into Aquinas what you wish he might have thought.
Here is what he actually wrote: (Summa Theologiae III:27:4):
I’m not sure what you mean by “the Virign Mary was conceived in sin,” but Aquinas seems to contradict you when he says “the honor of the parents reflects on the child,” so the honour of Mary’s parents would have been reflected in Mary.
According to you, then, whose sin was Mary “conceived in” if not her own and not in original sin?
If you mean Mary was born into a community and family where original sin was the condition of that community and family, well okay but neither do Aquinas nor the Church teach any different than that.
If you think Mary’s parents actually sinned when they conceived Mary, that would be a pretty outlandish claim and one that you would have to demonstrate. It contradicts what Aquinas says that “the honor of the parents reflects on the child,” so you couldn’t use Aquinas to support your position.
So what exactly is the “difference” that you are pointing to?
Last edited:
S
SalamKhan
Guest
From the Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas Aquinas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article2
You said:
See also:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article2
You said:
Where exactly did I give MY position? As a Muslim, I don’t even believe in original sin.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes, but as the texts I quoted show, he also contradicted what he stated in the Summa. So, one cannot say what “Aquinas believed” on the subject without qualification, as he also believed the opposite of what he asserted in the Summa when he wrote those two other works.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
@itsjustdave1988 He didn’t contradict himself:
See article 1 in the link as well.
Last edited:
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes. It’s the same Summa I’ve read and studied many years. It contradicts two other works of St. Thomas I referenced. You can keep posting it over and over again , but it won’t make your conclusion any more convincing.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
The Summa (as you stated yourself), was written later in his life. What you quoted, literally said nothing of whether she was exempt from original sin in her conception, just general statements that she was exempt from original sin. So why on earth are you behaving like this (getting defensive), when I wasn’t being rude or hostile at all?
Last edited:
- Status