A
Alindawyl
Guest
It does not logically follow that because I believe in the objective truth of the dogmas of the Catholic Church that I must also believe in the objective truth of every legal decision of every court…
- Status
W
WmJackP
Guest
Why don’t you google him? I only know what I read. Bruno was a man of his age, bounded by the wisdom of his times. But he had the courage to think outside the box at a time when he could (and did) fry for the privilege. I wish I had such courage, to be quite frank. I am certain if the Church were restored to her former power and influence as it held in Christian Europe during the middle ages, that I would “fall in line” rather than to be branded a heritic and pay the price.that Bruno did.Jack,
*All of that wisdom was stoled from the world because of—heresy? *
Exactly all of what wisdom are you referencing? I’m not aware that Bruno was the soul of wisdom. Please enlighten me with two or three great insights of wisdom he possessed that were stolen from the world by his execution.
Thanks.
But to opine on Bruno more. Perhaps, if we could go back to that era, he might find that he was more eccentric than couragous. I really don’t know. I am sure, at some point, he got a bit “nuttsey”. He was locked up for a few years before those hooded moderators of piety got around to cooking him. By that time he likely was chemically imbalanced and maybe that is what allowed him to tough it out and burn for the same exotic beliefs we we entertain today as well within the possibilities of this magnificent universe.
However, the important thing is that you’re content with what you know of heresy, the Church and all of its history. I, on the other hand, am not so satisfied; although, I am thankful that I live in an age where I may speak my own mind.
J
jmcrae
Guest
There comes a point when you have to settle into a world-view, and get on with your life. If you spend your entire life not yet having decided how to perceive the world, how will you ever know if you have met an attractive member of the opposite sex, and settle down and get married?
G
grannymh
Guest
First of all, what 16th century important and relevant details are you referring to?
Lanciano is unique because of modern scientific investigation.
Anatomical examination (1970-71) was done by the eminent professor Dr. Edward (Odoardo) Linoli, while he was director of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy, Hospital of Arezzo, Italy. No histological dissection has revealed any trace of salt infiltrations or preservative substances used in antiquity for the purpose of embalming. A subsequent investigation verified that the fragments taken from Lanciano could in no way be likened to mummified tissue. (Information from the Catalogue of the Vatican International Exhibition, The Eucharistic Miracles of the World)
In May, 2005, Dr. Linoli gave an interview to Zenit regarding his findings.
zenit.org/article-12933?l=english
Technically, the Lanciano incident is not regarded as proof positive of the Catholic belief in the Eucharist. Before I get flamed, please allow me to explain. The proof is God’s word. All else is beneficial to us as believers in God’s word. Miracles can deepen one’s faith, call us to greater reverence of the Eucharist and most important call us to a greater holiness of life as we are nourished by the Eucharist.
Catholic faith in the Eucharist is founded on the proclamation of Jesus Christ-- John, Chapter 6, the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and in 1 Corinthians11: 23-26.
The Catholic Church is constantly and consistently focused on her Lord, present in the Eucharist in which is the full manifestation of His boundless love. “O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine. All praise and all thanksgiving, be every moment Thine.” This is the greatest, unique, and incomparable “Miracle” ever. It is the one which takes place whenever and wherever the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated.
In addition, there have been extraordinary phenomenon or miraculous signs which are called Eucharistic miracles because they involve the bread and wine **after **they have been consecrated during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Basically, these miracles are meant to confirm our belief that after the words of Consecration, what seems like bread is no longer bread, and what seems like wine is no longer wine.
While these Eucharistic miracles continue to edify and inspire us, Catholics are not obliged to believe in them. Catholics are obliged to believe that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is substantially present under the signs or accidents of bread and wine.
Yes, I have been to Lanciano, Italy. Yes, I have studied most of the miracles in the Vatican International Exhibition and additional information. Yes, I did a poster-style exhibit based on some of the miracles included in the Exhibition at my parish.
Blessings,
granny
The Catholic Eucharist fulfills Christ’s promise to be with us always.
G
grannymh
Guest
I did not include your above comments in post 123 because they are a side issue. While popular conversation often distorts the actual Lanciano incident, one will find that the anatomical claim is only that there is human flesh and blood in an extraordinary manner. The immunological study shows that both flesh and blood belong to the same blood type, AB. At the time of the miracle, 750 A.D., the flesh was living. It then submitted to the law of rigor mortis. The blood coagulated into five unequal globules.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is meant for eternal life.
H
hecd2
Guest
They are being used to mean the same things:
The durability of a substance refers to the concept that substance is not transient but extensive in time, and thus the idea that the substance of an entity, which can clearly be determined to be the same entity with the same properties, changes from one moment to the next violates the criterion of durability.
Separability means that the substance of an entity is such that the entity exists independently of other things and can be discerned as being different from them. So the idea that the communion wafer can be different from the flesh, blood, spirit and divinity of Christin one instant and identical to it in another instant violates the criterion of separability.
Identity means that the entity is identified by belonging to a class that encompasses itself - and that is plainly and clearly violated by transubstantiation, as the Host has the identity of a bread wafer but is claimed to have the substance of Whole Presence.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
That might or might not be so (and various interpretations of the observations of quantum mechanics are interesting but too complex to discuss properly here), but it is irrelevant to my observation that the concept of “essence” corresponding to an ideal spiritual form that absolutely defines the identity of an entity has been discredited. The idea that there are ideal chairs or elephants or trees or bungalows or rainstorms to which actual objects or processes conform has become quite untenable. What Aristotle and Aquinas saw as absolute essences, are now seen as arbitrary but useful conventional (and tentative) categorisations defined by their properties. It is therefore hopelessly conflicted to claim that an entity is essentially one thing while displaying all the properties of an entirely different thing.
I know that that is what Catholics believe - and that is what is philosophically, rationally and linguistically problematic.
Well, I think that the evidence for that claim falls way below what would be a proper warrant for such an extraordinary claim.
As an aside, it’s not really a good idea to post your e-mail address like this on a publicly accessible forum . If you don’t get a lot of spam now, then you will, believe me.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
L
Leela
Guest
I see your point. I didn’t mean to imply that we always ought to hold our beliefs in doubt just that we ought to be willing to hold any of our beliefs in doubt for the sake of argument. I think that the old injunction “doubt everything” can never be done with sincerity. We can only doubt a belief with respect to our other beliefs. At some point in any inquiry, we (hopefully) reach satisfaction of our doubts that led us to inquire in the first place. You seem to be at that sort of state of satisfaction with regard to your religious beliefs.There comes a point when you have to settle into a world-view, and get on with your life. If you spend your entire life not yet having decided how to perceive the world, how will you ever know if you have met an attractive member of the opposite sex, and settle down and get married?
Nevertheless, I still see a problem with religious faith that your example of settling down in marriage suggests. One can decide, one can commit oneself to live a certain way as though certain things about the world were true whether or not they actually are, to try love others as one’s self, to perform various rituals at various times. Such can be done in the way that one can make a decision to act as a good husband or wife. One can know for a fact that his wife is not a queen, yet still treat as her as one. I think that is a good analogy for faith as a decision to live a certain way. But faith also includes the notion of believing that certain sentences are literally true. This is a problem because one cannot simply decide to believe certain facts in the way that we can commit ourselves to perform certain actions or commit ourselves to a marriage. If one’s faith depends on a certain belief it is then to some extent a hostage to that belief. If someone were to convince you that those beliefs were false, your faith would be threatened no matter how successful you have been at living your commitment to be a good Catholic. So people then tend to be fearful of ideas, because only ideas (new evidence and arguments) could threaten the commitment–the faith–that they have tried to live.
It seems to me that it need not be so. One can choose to live as though Jesus were God while not being so sure about the factuality of the sentence “Jesus was born of a virgin” and the like. I think such a one would be at a great advantage to one whose faith is a hostage to factual belief which always have the uncertainty of yes/no in the face of new evidence and arguments. By comparison, there is no historical fact I could learn about my husband that could call into question my commitment to being a good wife since my commitment is a choice lived rather than a mental construct–the belief that a sentence is true. Perhaps someone’s commitment to religion could have that same virtue. Perhaps it is better to think of faith as a choice lived (which opposes despair rather than disbelief) than the assent to a set of sentences. What do you think?
H
hecd2
Guest
You shouldn’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.So your open to the possibility of a square triangle. Great.
However, I have seen scuba diving students in the navigation test swim a three sided square…
Alec
evolutionpages.com
J
jmcrae
Guest
I don’t see why not. After all, the only thing approaching evidence about it that we have is the testimony of St. Luke, and the assent of the Early Fathers to St. Luke’s testimony.
I’m trying to figure out how any kind of evidence about Mary’s virginity (either way) is likely to surface. Her body is not on the earth. Even if it were, the kinds of tests required to discover for certain what her status was at the time of her death are long past their expiry date. I think it’s perfectly safe for me to trust the testimony of the Apostles and the assent of the Fathers on this and any other issue that may arise, simply because they were the people who established the parameters of this religion that I follow. Either they were passing on what they knew to be true, or they were making stuff up. You either take the whole thing, or you reject the whole thing. I take the leap of faith that they were telling what they knew to be true.
I think that’s actually a good way to approach it. The details fall into place once you accept the big picture. Knowing the truth about your husband’s past doesn’t change who you are towards him, but it gives you a clearer picture of who he is, for you.
Likewise, knowing what the Apostles thought was important about Jesus shows us how we can relate authentically to Him in the here and now.
R
rvilbig
Guest
I think you’re confusing substantial forms with Platonic forms. Aristotelean hylomorphism is rather different. For example: hot air is composed of prime matter (molecules) and a substantial form, or *essence * (heat). The molecules are not the heat: for they are described by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, in which a number of molecular speeds are potential, though no single particle simultaneously has all the potential speeds of the distribution at once. Conversely, the heat is not a molecule: for the heat (substantial form) may transfer from one particle to another, and as such the matter has changed but the substantial form continues to exist.
Furthermore, acknowledging the existence of universal categorizations does not also require that we hold them to be absolute in substance (union of matter and form). As the Venerable Cardinal Newman has written:
" ‘All men have their price, Fabricus is a man; [therefore]he has his price;’ but he had not his price; how is this? Because he is more than a universal; because he falls under other universals; because universals are ever at war with each other; because what is called a universal is only a general; because what is only general does not lead to a necessary conclusion. “Men have a conscience; Fabricus is a man; he has a conscience.” Until we have actual experience of Fabricus, we can only say, that, since he is a man, perhaps he will take a bribe, and perhaps he will not. “Latet dolus in generalibus;” [trans: Fraud lurks in generalities] they are arbitrary and fallacious, if we take them for more than broad views and aspects of things, serving as our notes and indications for judging of the particular, but not absolutely touching and determining facts." (Grammar of Assent, page 279)
Hope this helps,
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
W
WmJackP
Guest
I don’t think the party you criticize said anything which would imply that he is open to a contradiction. He is open to hearing both sides of an issue–and recognizes-- that there may be three, four or more sides to an issue–and that the sides to an issue may not materialze except over the course of time. He actually seems broad minded and earnest in making informed and rational judgments.Indeed, doing exactly the opposite of what you seem to be accusing him of, i.e. accepting contradictory .propsitions as true.So your open to the possibility of a square triangle. Great
One could, on the other hand, make a good argument that catholic dogma, while failing to recognize or appreciate any inconsistency, presents propsitions similar to your “square triange” example. Only they are called “mysteries of faith”. For example, transubstantiation, the triune godhead concept to name only two which seem both bizarre. and logically inconsistent…
H
hecd2
Guest
I’m not confusing anything. I think you should direct your comments at jmcrae to whom I was responding:
This all comes down to the problem of universals, and the complete rout of the idea of universals by nominalism - my point that our classification of an entity is inseparable from and depends entirely on its properties stands, and it stands against the idea that a thing can have all the properties of one substance and be substantially something totally different.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
rvilbig
Guest
I don’t think you’ve made your case. For example, before someone creates a genetically modified plant in the lab it has no particular existence, yet through understanding the associated genetic pathways, it has existence in the mind of the researcher. Nominalism can’t locate this unrealized idea on its map of the world.
Also, can you direct me to a peer-reviewed article that argues that evolution is incompatible with Platonic forms? I’ve been looking for one for a paper I’m revising for publication.
Thanks,
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I think you should let that person speak for themselves. As for your assertions, while they may seem bizarre and inconsistent to you, it doesn’t follow necessarily that they are logically impossible. We know that a square triangle is logically impossible because we know with absolute certainty what a triangle and a square is; but we don’t know, from a finite position, everything there is to know about the intrinsic nature of God. You cannot ignore epistemology when making strict logical claims about what is logically possible and what is not possible. To say that something is impossible, you have to have a positive knowledge of something which allows you to make that claim. I don’t know that it would be impossible for a non-physical nature to intrinsically express it self as three persons, given the context of non-physical. I know that it is perhaps impossible given certain particular conditions and natures, but I don’t know that this applies to the nature of God. Perhaps neither do I know how it is possible that a nature can be 3 persons and yet one nature; but this by itself does not amount to a justification for saying that a triune God is impossible. Its definitely counter-intuitive, but that is not a proof of impossibility.
There are three principles that must be adhered to when arguing for the possibility or impossibility of something.
- A thing can be said to be logically impossible if we have epistemological certainty about the contextual conditions involved.
- Or, a thing can be seen as contradictory if its truth requires the contingency of objective truth and reality as a universal whole. This is to say that it would be contradictory to believe that all of existence, as a universal whole, is a contingent fact; that there could have been absolutely nothing at all.
- Also, an apparent contradiction can be justly seen as a mystery if it follows necessarily from the act of existence, because existence cannot contradict existence. Thus we can be sure that what seems to be a contradiction in this case can be justifiably seen as an “incomprehensible fact” or a “mystery”.
It is impossible for there to be a possible objective truth entailing that there could have been absolutely nothing, because absolutely nothing is the absence of all objective truth and possibility, there is no objective truth or potentiality in that which is by nature absolutely nothing. There can be no objectivity in absolutely nothing if we in fact mean absolutely nothing. If absolutely nothing could be objectively true, then there would not be in fact absolutely nothing because it would be contradicted by the fact that there would be an objective “truth”; and thus there would be objectively something; the objective truth about absolutely nothing. This is a true contradiction because it gives ontological description to that which has no ontology; and thus the concept of a true absolute nothingness is meaningless and impossible. We know what absolutely nothing is, and thus we cannot rationally speak of something coming from it or nothing having a universal reality; at least that’s a problem for those who know what they are talking about.
In any case, you have not proven that there is in fact a contradiction in the idea of a triune God, and there has been explanations of the trinity which show that at least the concept is not inconsistent with the nature of God.
A
Alindawyl
Guest
We accept things all the time based on the testimony of others. I don’t understand the details of medicine but I accept what my doctor tells me when he performs a diagnosis. Testimony, however, is only as good as its source. My doctor is a great source and I trust the diagnosis he gives, but if my life is on the line I would seek a second opinion regardless of the fact that I trust his judgment. By his very nature, he is fallible and can make a mistake.
Catholic dogma, however, wasn’t invented by the Church. It doesn’t come from human beings doing thought experiments or trying to reason things out with philosophy or logic. The Catholic Church is no better or worse than any other religion if our teachings come from a human source. Catholic dogma is revealed to us by God, with the object of our faith being the person of Jesus Christ. That makes it testimony from a divine source. Because of that divinity, any lack of understanding or apparent contradiction on our part must be a result of our own limited nature because a divine source is infallible.
As long as you do not wish to have that relationship with Jesus Christ, as long as He is not the object of your faith, you will be forever seeking but never find what you’re looking for because the object of your faith will always be fallible.
W
WmJackP
Guest
I have a rather different view, I am sorry to say. What is a divine testimonial seems to be pretty much in the eye of the beholder. If I told you the moon was made of green cheese because my uncle Charlie says so, would that be convincing to you? And if I said it was made of green cheese because Baal told me so? How about if Jehova reputedly said so in scripted verses written over 2000 years ago, the originals of which we don’t have; but were copied over the decades and centuries (and we would like to hope without too much modification) by authors unknown? In my opinion all three sources could be in total agreement, but, I still wouldn’t be looking for cheese in the labortories where moon rock is kept.
I sense from your response and how you addressed my posts that you are sincere in your beliefs, and, I would never question that you try to live a good life, but, I have to tell you that your beliefs (by my perception) are strange and defy reason and logic. My hope for humanity is that it comes to a poit where we can deal with each other in a decent manner based upon a rational appreciation of out potential and on a sound ethical predicate, devoid of superstition and mystical thinking. I Hope that makes sense.
W
WmJackP
Guest
Unless atomic fusion takes place inside your body, all that happens when you eat bread is that it metaboilzes and converts the molecules into other physical products supplying energy in the process. So then, you cannot possibly mean what that sounds like, ie that the Eucharistic wafer undergoes some metabolic process (or nuclear change?) upon the utterances by the priest? No, I am sure you are trying to create an analog, but, you still beg the question of what a substance is?
A slice of bread, as a matter of fundelmental physics, is not the same thing as a a slice of ham. Your vision of “substance” is quite likely wrapped up in the Platonic idea of forms. In the 21st century I hope we have a more sophisticated view of “substance” based on chemistry and particle physics, not the Platonic world of Ideals.
G
grannymh
Guest
My own problems with universals aside. Just coming from a semantic point of view, there is only one real object being described as the result of “transubstantiation.” Technically, it involves a consecrated Host which is different than unconsecrated bread. If nominalism is applied to both, would one see unconsecrated bread as one entity and the consecrated Host as a different entity? If so, than separability is maintained. Identity of each would also be maintained since the basic description of both is different. Unconsecrated bread is in a different class all together than a consecrated Host.
Regarding durability of substance. This is kind of fuzzy because I am still working on the ideas of substance and substantially present. In the meantime, what is perceived by our senses in both unconsecrated bread and the Host are extensive in time. Being of natural matter, both will decompose eventually. (There is an Eucharistic miracle in which a significant number of Hosts did not decompose. Analysis of the Hosts in 1914, 1922, 1950 and 1951 concluded that this was a singular phenomenon regarding organic matter which had no signs of chemical preservatives.)
If we posit that because of durability of a substance, it cannot of itself change into another substance, then how does one explain the change in sensible characteristics. My old body comes immediately to mind. Moldy bread is another example.
This is totally off the top of my head. I will wait patiently for the critique of those more knowledgeable. For the most part, sensible accidents are transient. Even the genome could possibly be considered transient because of gene mutations. This is as far as I can go because of the current ban. Nonetheless, my point is that in nature, there are changes or adaptations due to outside causes.
Rather than dealing with universals, one can deal with actual objects, wheat, bread, mold, penicillin and so on. Could one say in regard to the changes from wheat to penicillin that the original nature in each object is, in a sense removed, and another defining nature is in its place? Wheat changes from one class to another.
As I said, this is totally of the top of my head. Hopefully, it will provide food for thought.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is sacred.
W
WmJackP
Guest
Well if it truly were objective truth, you would be foolish not to believe it.
However, I am certain you must know that court decisions are not objective truths. They are the judgment of jurors or of judges. We hope they are probably right and conform to reality, but, we can only hope that to be the case. I must go further though and say, in a similar vein, that “doctrines of faith” which you call “objective truths” are no more objective than the rest of what we humans come up with. Beliefs of faith are the pronouncements of bishops, popes, church fathers and others who say and interpret things which are claimed to be “godspeak”. It is only through a process of inculcation, that people of faith come to actually believe them to be so and hence call them “objective truths”. OJ Simpson can go around the countryside and say he is innicent of the murder of the wife and “objectively” point to the verdict handed down by a California jury, but, it is–in its only true sense–an opinion based on a very long and tedious forensic presentation. But it is a verdict. It has the force of law and the homicide of Nicole Simpson will never again be revisited. You and I have our own opinions perhaps different than the verdict. But at their essence, our opinions are only opinions. They just don’t have the force of law as does the verdict.
The reality may be that there is no objective truth----There may only be be opinion and probability. It may be that to live realistically, one must come to accept uncertainty. For example, consider a hypothical man convicted of a horrible crime based on eye witness testimony. The jury convicts him and he does 10 years, then DNA technology advances to a point where it can retrieve the archived DNA samples from the criminal investigation of a decade ago—it shows a liklihood (1: 4.8 billion chance) that this guy didn’t commit the crime. We still have only probability of innocence, albeit extremely high, and, so high, in fact that our law allows it to trump the jury verdict of guilty.
Uncertainty is not altogether as comforting nor as “warm and fuzzy” as believing something (Allah, God, Baal, totems, the Pope, amulets, rabbit’s feet, etc, etc) exists which offers certitude. It is so much easier on the psyche to believe that spiritual beings are looking after you, or, that you can propitiate divine aide by prayer and sacrafice; but, all you really accomplish is anesthetizing your fears by magical thinking. On the other hand, by living realistically, you, at least, have the satisfaction of having been true to your own self, and, the answers which you do find will be reality based.
Make sense?
- Status