Metaphysics

[billcu1]

Ok can someone who is expert at this help me? Ok Aristotle and Thomism. The form is more real than matter. Matter can be known through accidents. Forms is simple elements and the compound ones. Not sure what that is. The heavist, Earth is known for dryness. It’s qualities are also cold. Cold and dry. Surrounding that is the next least heavy, Water. Then the lighter elements. there is a 3 foldness about elements too. I read from Agrippa and Avicenna. Does anyone know what that is?

 

[Richca]

Ok can someone who is expert at this help me? Ok Aristotle and Thomism. The form is more real than matter. Matter can be known through accidents. Forms is simple elements and the compound ones. Not sure what that is. The heavist, Earth is known for dryness. It’s qualities are also cold. Cold and dry. Surrounding that is the next least heavy, Water. Then the lighter elements. there is a 3 foldness about elements too. I read from Agrippa and Avicenna. Does anyone know what that is?

Matter is just as real as form but the reason why it may be said that form is more real than matter is because matter only exists through the form. The form is the act of matter. Forms are acts and matter is potentiality. Matter in itself, without form, does not have actual existence; it has not actual existence but only potential existence. The form is what gives a thing actual being and the matter too. The form/matter distinction of which material substances are composed of is an instance of the more general metaphysical distinction of act/potency.

The simple elements and compound substances are a composite of form and matter. This is the Aristotlelian doctrine of of hylemorphism. Until the discovery of the elements on the modern periodic table, the simple elements were thought to be earth, water, air, and fire. The simple elements are themselves a composite of form and matter. For example, the substance of the element earth is a composite of the substantial form ‘earth’ and matter. Cold and dry are accidental qualities (qualities are accidental forms) of earth.

It is not just matter that is known through the accidents; rather it is the substance that is known through the accidents. The substance is the composite of the substantial form and prime matter. All material substances have accidents too otherwise they wouldn’t be sense observable. Knowledge is received only through the forms. Matter in itself is unknowable nor does it even exist without form. That is, without form matter would be unknowable nor would it exist.

 

[hicetnunc]

Hi Bill,

Maybe it would help to think about this way.

Let’s say I wanted to make a piece of furniture, say a chair. The first thing I’d do is get the stuff I need to make the chair: the wood, materials and tools. But notice how the wood and tools do not pick themselves out; they are brought together by me (the agent) based on a plan I have in my head for the chair. I see, in my mind’s eye, an oak chair with a high back and curved arms. The chair is brought about, not just by the materials, but by my idea of what the chair should look like. The oak, or materials, are brought about in this instance by the “form” or, my idea of the chair. My idea takes on a physical reality in the chair so, in a sense, my idea of the chair is embodied in the finished product.

The biggest question in philosophy has always been, where does this “idea” for the chair come from? In my example, clearly the idea comes from me. But what about in terms of the universe? We Christians would automatically say, “God”. But, on reflection, even this answer is tricky. My ideas are “part” of me; but in God there are no “parts.” My ideas come and go; but there is no change in God. So is the idea of me eternally God’s essence? This was the thinking of the Arabic school, which Avicenna is tackling.

Plato’s solution was to say that there are eternal “forms” (in Greek, the word for form and idea comes from the same root) out there, or “archetypes” which have always exited. Aristotle was not happy with this solution; he thought that forms could not be counted as “things” like chairs. Aristotle did not think we could really logically separate the form from the matter except by doing some kind of violence to the idea of form.

St Thomas rejects the one soul, or shared essence view of the Arabic school. This comes too close to pantheism. He also, like Aristotle, rejects the idea that forms are “things” separately from existent beings in which the form inheres. In typical fashion, St Thomas tries to find a middle ground between treating forms as independent being and as nothing but concepts (this latter approach is nominalism: forms are not real, just concepts).

He relies on something called an anlogy of being: imagine a shadow cast by a tree. The shadow is not the tree, but neither is totally independent of the tree. The shadow received its “form”, or shape from the tree but the tree remains a tree, unaffected by the shadow.

All of philosophy is essentially about finding a middle ground between extremes, certainly this is the method of Aristotle-Thomas (Thomas of course has a more refined theology, which Aristotle didn’t have). I always remember the late Norris Clarke saying that all philosophy is concerned with distinctions between extremes (in this case, between pantheism and ontologism, or making everything into kinds of things we can count).

Hope this helps…happy to talk about it more if not!

 

[Vico]

Ok can someone who is expert at this help me? Ok Aristotle and Thomism. The form is more real than matter. Matter can be known through accidents. Forms is simple elements and the compound ones. Not sure what that is. The heavist, Earth is known for dryness. It’s qualities are also cold. Cold and dry. Surrounding that is the next least heavy, Water. Then the lighter elements. there is a 3 foldness about elements too. I read from Agrippa and Avicenna. Does anyone know what that is?

Aristotle, first book of Physics, two kinds of change:

1. Substances (ousiai) change by gaining or losing a property.
2. Substance comes into, or passes out of, existence.

This requires three things in any change:

1. 
   *]something which underlies and persists the change,
   *]the form acquired during the course of the change (one of a pair of opposites),
   *]the lack, (one of a pair of opposites).
   
   A thing’s form is its definition or essence. Aristotle believes in “prime matter”, the matter of the elements such that each element is a compound of matter and a form. “Prime matter” is capable of taking any form so without any essential properties of its own
   
   Illustration: in a brick fireplace it is the bricks which persist through the change of no fireplace to fireplace. They transition from a state of not being a fireplace to acquire the property of being a fireplace.
   
   Discussions can be difficult to understand since there are different meanings to word and the correct one must be used as intended.
   
   For example, two different meanings of substance:
   1. the real or essential part or element of anything; essence, reality, or basic matter
   2. a. the physical matter of which a thing consists; material
   3. b. matter of a particular kind or chemical composition
   Also, two different meanings of form:
   1. A form of something is a type or kind of it.
      3.The form of something is its shape.

 

[billcu1]

Hi Bill,

Maybe it would help to think about this way.

Let’s say I wanted to make a piece of furniture, say a chair. The first thing I’d do is get the stuff I need to make the chair: the wood, materials and tools. But notice how the wood and tools do not pick themselves out; they are brought together by me (the agent) based on a plan I have in my head for the chair. I see, in my mind’s eye, an oak chair with a high back and curved arms. The chair is brought about, not just by the materials, but by my idea of what the chair should look like. The oak, or materials, are brought about in this instance by the “form” or, my idea of the chair. My idea takes on a physical reality in the chair so, in a sense, my idea of the chair is embodied in the finished product.

The biggest question in philosophy has always been, where does this “idea” for the chair come from? In my example, clearly the idea comes from me. But what about in terms of the universe? We Christians would automatically say, “God”. But, on reflection, even this answer is tricky. My ideas are “part” of me; but in God there are no “parts.” My ideas come and go; but there is no change in God. So is the idea of me eternally God’s essence? This was the thinking of the Arabic school, which Avicenna is tackling.

Plato’s solution was to say that there are eternal “forms” (in Greek, the word for form and idea comes from the same root) out there, or “archetypes” which have always exited. Aristotle was not happy with this solution; he thought that forms could not be counted as “things” like chairs. Aristotle did not think we could really logically separate the form from the matter except by doing some kind of violence to the idea of form.

St Thomas rejects the one soul, or shared essence view of the Arabic school. This comes too close to pantheism. He also, like Aristotle, rejects the idea that forms are “things” separately from existent beings in which the form inheres. In typical fashion, St Thomas tries to find a middle ground between treating forms as independent being and as nothing but concepts (this latter approach is nominalism: forms are not real, just concepts).

He relies on something called an anlogy of being: imagine a shadow cast by a tree. The shadow is not the tree, but neither is totally independent of the tree. The shadow received its “form”, or shape from the tree but the tree remains a tree, unaffected by the shadow.

All of philosophy is essentially about finding a middle ground between extremes, certainly this is the method of Aristotle-Thomas (Thomas of course has a more refined theology, which Aristotle didn’t have). I always remember the late Norris Clarke saying that all philosophy is concerned with distinctions between extremes (in this case, between pantheism and ontologism, or making everything into kinds of things we can count).

Hope this helps…happy to talk about it more if not!

I think Aristotle had a good idea of God. As we would say. he called the “unmoved mover”. If all is motion somewhere there is one that is indivisable. That could never have been non-existent. That began the movement, without being moved upon. Aristotle said this was the highest form of divinity that we could grasp. And “he” or “it” contemplates the ultimate contemplation. It’s self contemplating. They say God’s mind is so strong if he took his mind off of us for a second we would cease to exist. Pretty good theology I think myself.

 

[billcu1]

Aristotle, first book of Physics, two kinds of change:

1. Substances (ousiai) change by gaining or losing a property.
2. Substance comes into, or passes out of, existence.

This requires three things in any change:

1. 
   *]something which underlies and persists the change,
   *]the form acquired during the course of the change (one of a pair of opposites),
   *]the lack, (one of a pair of opposites).
   
   A thing’s form is its definition or essence. Aristotle believes in “prime matter”, the matter of the elements such that each element is a compound of matter and a form. “Prime matter” is capable of taking any form so without any essential properties of its own
   
   Illustration: in a brick fireplace it is the bricks which persist through the change of no fireplace to fireplace. They transition from a state of not being a fireplace to acquire the property of being a fireplace.
   
   Discussions can be difficult to understand since there are different meanings to word and the correct one must be used as intended.
   
   For example, two different meanings of substance:
   1. the real or essential part or element of anything; essence, reality, or basic matter
   2. a. the physical matter of which a thing consists; material
   3. b. matter of a particular kind or chemical composition
   Also, two different meanings of form:
   1. A form of something is a type or kind of it.
      3.The form of something is its shape.

1. 
   What I am trying to understand here too is cosmology. And “above” the elements the lightest being Fire, there is the lunar heaven. And there’s a sub lunar heaven. Sounds kinda Ptolemaic. This is how we are designed inside. The mystic understands this. But it might not be literally correct on the outside .We with our telescopes and all.

 

[hicetnunc]

I think Aristotle had a good idea of God. As we would say. he called the “unmoved mover”. If all is motion somewhere there is one that is indivisable. That could never have been non-existent. That began the movement, without being moved upon. Aristotle said this was the highest form of divinity that we could grasp. And “he” or “it” contemplates the ultimate contemplation. It’s self contemplating. They say God’s mind is so strong if he took his mind off of us for a second we would cease to exist. Pretty good theology I think myself.

Hi Bill,

Certainly, Aristotle had some ideas about an Unmoved Mover, etc., but we can’t really call his understanding a theology equivalent to that of St Thomas. Indeed, St Thomas does not count demonstrations of God’s existence, or the existence of an unmoved mover, as requiring faith or revelation. He teaches, as does the Church, that knowledge of God’s existence is possible for unaided human reason: we can use natural reason to arrive at some metaphysical conclusions about the origin of the universe. Theology, on the other hand, is a matter of Revelation: what has been revealed to the Church through Christ and the Apostles. Aristotle’s work is not divine revelation, but a work of unaided reason, and so is not properly understood as being a “theology”.

Also, Aristotle never said that if God took his mind of us, we would cease to exist.

A theological understanding of God – one which requires Revelation – would include things like God is Triune; God is all-loving; Christ is God; the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. Aristotle had no concept of these things.

Hicetnunc

 

[billcu1]

Hi Bill,

Certainly, Aristotle had some ideas about an Unmoved Mover, etc., but we can’t really call his understanding a theology equivalent to that of St Thomas. Indeed, St Thomas does not count demonstrations of God’s existence, or the existence of an unmoved mover, as requiring faith or revelation. He teaches, as does the Church, that knowledge of God’s existence is possible for unaided human reason: we can use natural reason to arrive at some metaphysical conclusions about the origin of the universe. Theology, on the other hand, is a matter of Revelation: what has been revealed to the Church through Christ and the Apostles. Aristotle’s work is not divine revelation, but a work of unaided reason, and so is not properly understood as being a “theology”.

Also, Aristotle never said that if God took his mind of us, we would cease to exist.

A theological understanding of God – one which requires Revelation – would include things like God is Triune; God is all-loving; Christ is God; the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. Aristotle had no concept of these things.

Hicetnunc

No Aristotle didn’t say that part I mentioned about the mind of God. But it has been said. Well no I wouldn’t compare “theologies” of Thomas to Aristotle. But I was saying Aristotle did mention “God”. What is revealed to one might not be the same as revealed to another though. As is said, “His ways aren’t our ways.”. We are given a thing for a time. We have been just as the ancient Hebrews were; given something for a time.

 

[Vico]

What I am trying to understand here too is cosmology. And “above” the elements the lightest being Fire, there is the lunar heaven. And there’s a sub lunar heaven. Sounds kinda Ptolemaic. This is how we are designed inside. The mystic understands this. But it might not be literally correct on the outside .We with our telescopes and all.

Aristotle used the four terrestrial elements – water, fire, air, earth – and the fifth element aether in which the rotating spheres are embedded, with the lunar sphere against the terrestrial. The celestial sphere is eternal and aether is unchanging in this system. The terrestrial elements can change into the adjacent two.

 

[billcu1]

Aristotle used the four terrestrial elements – water, fire, air, earth – and the fifth element aether in which the rotating spheres are embedded, with the lunar sphere against the terrestrial. The celestial sphere is eternal and aether is unchanging in this system. The terrestrial elements can change into the adjacent two.

I’m not quite sure what you mean in the last sentence. I know one element can become another. Now Is all the “planetary"spheres” within this one ethereal sphere?

Sounds like Claudius Ptolemy and the middle ages.

 

[Vico]

I’m not quite sure what you mean in the last sentence. I know one element can become another. Now Is all the “planetary"spheres” within this one ethereal sphere?

Sounds like Claudius Ptolemy and the middle ages.

Aristotle conceived that the heavens were literally composed of 55 concentric spheres containing the celestial objects with the Earth at the center. All from eternal aether. The order is geocentric.

Four Elements: **Air **- dry - Earth - cold - Water - wet - Air

De Generatione et Corruptione – Book II, Chapter 3

The elementary qualities are four, and any four terms can be combined in six couples. Contraries, however, refuse to be coupled: for it is impossible for the same thing to be hot and cold, or moist and dry.[9] Hence it is evident that the “couplings” of the elementary qualities will be four: hot with dry and moist with hot, and again cold with dry and cold with moist. And these four couples have attached themselves to the apparently “simple” bodies (Fire, Air, Water, and Earth) in a manner consonant with theory. For Fire is hot and dry, whereas Air is hot and moist (Air being a sort of aqueous vapour); and Water is cold and moist, while Earth is cold and dry.[10] Thus the differences are reasonably distributed among the primary bodies, and the number of the latter is consonant with theory. For all who make the simple bodies “elements” postulate either one, or two, or three, or four.

web.lemoyne.edu/giunta/EA/ARISTOTLEann.html

 

[billcu1]

Aristotle conceived that the heavens were literally composed of 55 concentric spheres containing the celestial objects with the Earth at the center. All from eternal aether. The order is geocentric.

Four Elements: **Air **- dry - Earth - cold - Water - wet - Air

De Generatione et Corruptione – Book II, Chapter 3

The elementary qualities are four, and any four terms can be combined in six couples. Contraries, however, refuse to be coupled: for it is impossible for the same thing to be hot and cold, or moist and dry.[9] Hence it is evident that the “couplings” of the elementary qualities will be four: hot with dry and moist with hot, and again cold with dry and cold with moist. And these four couples have attached themselves to the apparently “simple” bodies (Fire, Air, Water, and Earth) in a manner consonant with theory. For Fire is hot and dry, whereas Air is hot and moist (Air being a sort of aqueous vapour); and Water is cold and moist, while Earth is cold and dry.[10] Thus the differences are reasonably distributed among the primary bodies, and the number of the latter is consonant with theory. For all who make the simple bodies “elements” postulate either one, or two, or three, or four.

web.lemoyne.edu/giunta/EA/ARISTOTLEann.html

Thanks for that link. It might be trying to say the same as far as theory as Henry Agrippa here,

esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm#chap3

He’s harder to understand, but it’s consistent with the times. Now Claudius Galen added degrees to his elemental theory with humors. I am trying to understand Galen and Aristotle and Avicenna. Hippocrates is hard to find much. The “great physicians” have much to say. Much as Jesus did those he spoke to when “about his father’s business” as a child. He spoke of Metaphysics.

The theories here especially pertaining to medicine are interesting.

 

[billcu1]

Hi Bill,

Certainly, Aristotle had some ideas about an Unmoved Mover, etc., but we can’t really call his understanding a theology equivalent to that of St Thomas. Indeed, St Thomas does not count demonstrations of God’s existence, or the existence of an unmoved mover, as requiring faith or revelation. He teaches, as does the Church, that knowledge of God’s existence is possible for unaided human reason: we can use natural reason to arrive at some metaphysical conclusions about the origin of the universe. Theology, on the other hand, is a matter of Revelation: what has been revealed to the Church through Christ and the Apostles. Aristotle’s work is not divine revelation, but a work of unaided reason, and so is not properly understood as being a “theology”.

Also, Aristotle never said that if God took his mind of us, we would cease to exist.

A theological understanding of God – one which requires Revelation – would include things like God is Triune; God is all-loving; Christ is God; the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. Aristotle had no concept of these things.

Hicetnunc

I think at least from my understanding they have always known that everything happens in threes. As far as that goes. As far as the nature of things. IDK as far as our “persons” go whether they know about that or not. Well I should probably correct myself. That’s God has ONE nature, and THREE persons. But his wikipedia article does say “Aristotle’s Theology”. I can’t find anywhere the details of the “rings” or spheres. I guess Ptolomy, Aristole and a couple of others didn’t agree on the number of spheres. Hum. I do see where Aristotle said there with some of the planets were more than one “ring”. The “movers” where outside in the celestial sphere. Or beyond that. he’s hitting on something, but without anymore details IDK if I can really understand him. Would Aquinas have believed the same? Cosmology wise that is?

 

[Vico]

I’m not quite sure what you mean in the last sentence. I know one element can become another. Now Is all the “planetary"spheres” within this one ethereal sphere?

Sounds like Claudius Ptolemy and the middle ages.

It should have been this:

Air - dry - Earth - cold - Water - wet - Fire - hot

 

[MPat]

Ok can someone who is expert at this help me? Ok Aristotle and Thomism. The form is more real than matter. Matter can be known through accidents. Forms is simple elements and the compound ones. Not sure what that is. The heavist, Earth is known for dryness. It’s qualities are also cold. Cold and dry. Surrounding that is the next least heavy, Water. Then the lighter elements. there is a 3 foldness about elements too. I read from Agrippa and Avicenna. Does anyone know what that is?

What I am trying to understand here too is cosmology. And “above” the elements the lightest being Fire, there is the lunar heaven. And there’s a sub lunar heaven. Sounds kinda Ptolemaic. This is how we are designed inside. The mystic understands this. But it might not be literally correct on the outside .We with our telescopes and all.

Things are not as complex, as you make them to be.

It is not something that needs a “mystic”. In fact, all those things about the four elements and the like are not Metaphysics at all (Metaphysics does concern matter and form, substances and accidents, but not the four elements). They are Physics. State-of-the-art for its own time, obsolete now.

Four elements explain why Atmosphere is above Lithosphere and Hydrosphere, why Hydrosphere is above Lithosphere. Now we have better explanations for that (Newtonian mechanics, General Theory of Relativity). And, in fact, they cause less difficulties to Aristotelian Metaphysics! After all, it took some effort to Aristotle to explain why, let’s say, stone’s falling down is not self-caused (dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics8.htm#8), while now we can easily say that this movement is caused by gravitational field or curved space, which, in turn, is caused by Earth.

Thanks for that link. It might be trying to say the same as far as theory as Henry Agrippa here,

esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm#chap3

He’s harder to understand, but it’s consistent with the times. Now Claudius Galen added degrees to his elemental theory with humors. I am trying to understand Galen and Aristotle and Avicenna. Hippocrates is hard to find much. The “great physicians” have much to say. Much as Jesus did those he spoke to when “about his father’s business” as a child. He spoke of Metaphysics.

The theories here especially pertaining to medicine are interesting.

OK, now, why exactly are you reading books by someone whom Wikipedia describes as “an occult writer” (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Cornelius_Agrippa&oldid=775394910)? And, given the URL, most likely precisely the books that concern just that “field”?

That doesn’t look encouraging and it is highly unlikely to have anything to do with Aristotle, Thomism - or anything else that is good for you in any way. I would strongly recommend to stay away from it.

 

[billcu1]

Things are not as complex, as you make them to be.

It is not something that needs a “mystic”. In fact, all those things about the four elements and the like are not Metaphysics at all (Metaphysics does concern matter and form, substances and accidents, but not the four elements). They are Physics. State-of-the-art for its own time, obsolete now.

Four elements explain why Atmosphere is above Lithosphere and Hydrosphere, why Hydrosphere is above Lithosphere. Now we have better explanations for that (Newtonian mechanics, General Theory of Relativity). And, in fact, they cause less difficulties to Aristotelian Metaphysics! After all, it took some effort to Aristotle to explain why, let’s say, stone’s falling down is not self-caused (dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics8.htm#8), while now we can easily say that this movement is caused by gravitational field or curved space, which, in turn, is caused by Earth.

OK, now, why exactly are you reading books by someone whom Wikipedia describes as “an occult writer” (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinrich_Cornelius_Agrippa&oldid=775394910)? And, given the URL, most likely precisely the books that concern just that “field”?

That doesn’t look encouraging and it is highly unlikely to have anything to do with Aristotle, Thomism - or anything else that is good for you in any way. I would strongly recommend to stay away from it.

I don’t think our modern physics. This sphere, that sphere and so on explains what’s inside. Occult or “The things of God that are hidden from the eyes of man” I see you cannot see. These 21st century things do not help with one’s health. Which is my primary concern. The 4 elements and 5th element, qualities and so on do. Avicenna’s “Canon of medicine” that proves there is not such thing as “incurable” disease, you cannot see.

my concerns of Agrippa lie in his understanding of Aristotle. And what’s inside. Are you familiar with this man,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsilio_Ficino

God bless.

 

[billcu1]

Aristotle conceived that the heavens were literally composed of 55 concentric spheres containing the celestial objects with the Earth at the center. All from eternal aether. The order is geocentric.

Four Elements: **Air **- dry - Earth - cold - Water - wet - Air

De Generatione et Corruptione – Book II, Chapter 3

The elementary qualities are four, and any four terms can be combined in six couples. Contraries, however, refuse to be coupled: for it is impossible for the same thing to be hot and cold, or moist and dry.[9] Hence it is evident that the “couplings” of the elementary qualities will be four: hot with dry and moist with hot, and again cold with dry and cold with moist. And these four couples have attached themselves to the apparently “simple” bodies (Fire, Air, Water, and Earth) in a manner consonant with theory. For Fire is hot and dry, whereas Air is hot and moist (Air being a sort of aqueous vapour); and Water is cold and moist, while Earth is cold and dry.[10] Thus the differences are reasonably distributed among the primary bodies, and the number of the latter is consonant with theory. For all who make the simple bodies “elements” postulate either one, or two, or three, or four.

web.lemoyne.edu/giunta/EA/ARISTOTLEann.html

Thanks much for that link Vico! I have finally got to get into and read it; it was very helpful!

God Bless.

 

[MPat]

I don’t think our modern physics. This sphere, that sphere and so on explains what’s inside. Occult or “The things of God that are hidden from the eyes of man” I see you cannot see. These 21st century things do not help with one’s health. Which is my primary concern. The 4 elements and 5th element, qualities and so on do. Avicenna’s “Canon of medicine” that proves there is not such thing as “incurable” disease, you cannot see.

my concerns of Agrippa lie in his understanding of Aristotle. And what’s inside. Are you familiar with this man,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsilio_Ficino

God bless.

So, you want physical health? Are you really willing to risk your mental and spiritual health to achieve it?

I am going to give you links to “Catholic Encyclopedia” articles about that Agrippa, Gnosticism and Occultism, and to the relevant part of Catechism:

• newadvent.org/cathen/01231c.htm
• newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
• newadvent.org/cathen/11197b.htm
• vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM

I’d say this part of Catechism is especially relevant here: “All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.”.

But if that won’t change your mind, perhaps you’ll at least consider finding out how to contact an exorcist beforehand?

 

[billcu1]

So, you want physical health? Are you really willing to risk your mental and spiritual health to achieve it?

I am going to give you links to “Catholic Encyclopedia” articles about that Agrippa, Gnosticism and Occultism, and to the relevant part of Catechism:

• newadvent.org/cathen/01231c.htm
• newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
• newadvent.org/cathen/11197b.htm
• vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM

I’d say this part of Catechism is especially relevant here: “All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.”.

But if that won’t change your mind, perhaps you’ll at least consider finding out how to contact an exorcist beforehand?

[OT ,kinda]

I simply say this. This is not the way of the philosopher but of superstition. He wants us to seek knowledge, wisdom, understanding. Hermetics is beside the point. I didn’t really want to get into that. What you have cited in the Catechism I agree with in its’ relevant part. It is not wrong. I know some who have dealt with angels. I have met (in flesh) one of my angels. I know him (her) well. And she has no memory she claims which is valid. The oldest man I have met was born in 1749. It wasn’t a demon, the devil, Satan, or a witch. Notice here I am not denying demons or that they can take on a human form. I am not afraid of Linda Blair. I don’t avoid ladders and black cats. if you seek the kingdom of heaven, these things will be added to you. Do you see? IDK what you call knowledge but assuming the Church has properly judged the old Gnostic Churches and it sounds like not. There are things Jesus reserved for his children of his right hand. As Jesus said, “What is it to you if I would have him live until I return. Follow me.” Thus is the difference in Peter and John. His right and left hand. Did I post a big scary link? The seeker moves on.

[/OT]

I am interested in the medicine. Other things are not relevant. Do you see what is and is not relevant? "He who seeks will find [and will become troubled, then astonished, and will reign over the entirety]. What happened to our scriptures? What was done? Can I not look at Qumran and Nag Hammadi texts? They might grab me!

God Bless.

PS And thanks for the links.

 

[billcu1]

Alright, well I am going to go ahead and leave this thread . Unless anyone else has anything they would like to say. I will leave you this to consider. What is the term “magic”? Is this evil magic? God allows us to do as he wills.

angelfire.com/ga4/joydoctor/MagicPsalms.html

The magical use of Psalms. Agrippa was contemporary to his time. And from what I’ve read and a very keen awareness of cosmology of the time. And a working knowledge. The same of Avicenna.

God Bless.