Perfect Happiness

[davidv]

It depends…

On what?

The Catechism can be misleading if not explained properly.

Also, if not understood properly.

When you say “natural desire,”
Are you including
Lusting?

No. The catechism reads “natural desire for happiness”. So why would I included lust?

If so,
I would say,
No (alone and not yes).

It’s not so, so you may not say this.

Is it your understanding that,
No means no (alone and not yes)?

Depends on whether the speaker or writer means what they say or write.

Considering those in the Church,
Who scandalized the Church,
By sexually abusing,
Are you saying that
The Church is the “One”
Who alone can fulfill
Perfect Happiness?

Is the Church the face of God? No.

I would again say,
No (alone and not yes).

I think I agree.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Peace of Christ.

Peace to you also

My understanding may be in error.Yes it is!
Could you please reference the miracles,
Associated with St. Thomas’ canonization?
His real miracles are irrelevant to this conversation. You presented a premise the St. Thomas’ “Summa” was one of the miracles that made him a Saint. This is false. This writing would not be considered a miracle in any sense of the word. It is you who presented this premise so it is you who needs to back up what you wrote.

I believe that davidv can speak for himself.

I’m sure he can, I was not speaking for David, I was merely making an observation in the hopes that you could better claify what it is you are trying make us understand. In other words you are not making sense… too me anyway!

once again - Peace!

 

[Psychotheosophy]

On what?

On Truth.

No. The catechism reads “natural desire for happiness”. So why would I included lust?

According to the Encyclical Letter or Pope Leo XIII,
“On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy
According to the Mind of
St. Thomas Aquinas
The Angelic Doctor,”

Pope Leo XIII,
Reiterated the importance
Of the basic assumption of the Summa,
Which was decreed by the fifth Lateran Council.
Which is, “every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is altogether false, because the truth cannot possibly contradict the truth.”

So,

Since you say the Summa is not dogma,
Then when you say “natural desire,”
Do you mean that,

Happiness is and isn’t Happiness,
Truth is and isn’t Truth,
Sin is and isn’t sin
No is and isn’t no?

I think I agree.

How do you distinguish between,
Thinking from knowing?

His real miracles are irrelevant to this conversation. You presented a premise the St. Thomas’ “Summa” was one of the miracles that made him a Saint. This is false. This writing would not be considered a miracle in any sense of the word. It is you who presented this premise so it is you who needs to back up what you wrote.

Now, I’ve heard different views on the subject,
For the sake of fraternal correction,
Please reference his miracles.

 

[davidv]

On Truth.

According to the Encyclical Letter or Pope Leo XIII,
“On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy
According to the Mind of
St. Thomas Aquinas
The Angelic Doctor,”

Pope Leo XIII,
Reiterated the importance
Of the basic assumption of the Summa,
Which was decreed by the fifth Lateran Council.
Which is, “every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is altogether false, because the truth cannot possibly contradict the truth.”

So,

Since you say the Summa is not dogma,
Then when you say “natural desire,”
Do you mean that,

Happiness is and isn’t Happiness,
Truth is and isn’t Truth,
Sin is and isn’t sin
No is and isn’t no?

How do you distinguish between,
Thinking from knowing?

Now, I’ve heard different views on the subject,
For the sake of fraternal correction,
Please reference his miracles.

I have no idea what you attempted to communicate to me. Please restate.

 

[prodigal-sun]

views on the subject,
For the sake of fraternal correction,
Please reference his miracles.

Different views on the subject? Who on earth would tell you that the "Summa was one of his miracles.

Why? What is the point? The Fraternal correction is the fact that his writings are not a miracle.

Peace!

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Please restate.

Sure,

If you separate the catechism from the Summa,
One could accept that Happiness is and isn’t Happiness.
(“The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for something which is and isn’t happiness”).

So again,

When you say “natural desire,”
Are you including
Lust?

Depends on whether the speaker or writer means what they say or write.

How do you know,
When the speaker or writer,
Means “yes” when they say or write “no”?

How do you distinguish between,

Thinking from knowing?

OK,

How do you distinguish between,
Thinking and knowing?

Who on earth would tell you that the "Summa was one of his miracles.

Apparently, Pope John XXII at St. Thomas’ canonization…

maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/conway04.htm

 

[Psychotheosophy]

If you separate the catechism from the Summa,
One could accept that Happiness is and isn’t Happiness.
(“The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for something which is and isn’t happiness”).

Of course,
As in the Summa,
I am not referring to “One” as God.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Apparently, Pope John XXII at St. Thomas’ canonization…

maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/conway04.htm

And so,

Since miracles lead to belief,
And
The logic of St. Thomas lead to conversions,
Then,
The logic of St. Thomas was miraculous.

But I would agree that,
Anything illogical,
Should not be
Considered,
miraculous
(dogma).

 

[davidv]

Sure,

If you separate the catechism from the Summa,
One could accept that Happiness is and isn’t Happiness.
(“The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for something which is and isn’t happiness”).

Nonsense. Happiness is or happiness isn’t.

Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) **or **(b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context.

So again,

When you say “natural desire,”
Are you including
Lust?

I didn’t say. See post # 61.

How do you know,
When the speaker or writer,
Means “yes” when they say or write “no”?

I might not. How do you know?

OK,

How do you distinguish between,
Thinking and knowing?

***–verb (used without object) ***
2. to employ one’s mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation:

***–verb (used with object) ***

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:

According to the definitions above.

Apparently, Pope John XXII at St. Thomas’ canonization…

maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/conway04.htm

I read the citation. I found nothing that declare the Summa a miracle.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

–verb (used without object)
2. to employ one’s mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation

Interesting that you say this.

"If anybody says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord cannot be know with certainty

in the light of human reason by those things which have been made, anathema sit (it is heretical)."

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

"The Divine Revelation guarantees the infallible certainty

of the truths of the Faith."

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

"The highest degree of certainty

appertains to the immediate revealed truths."

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Reason gives certainty (like “scientific certainty”, Climate Change,…)
But not infallible certainty (like all people desiring Happiness, Divine Revelation,…)

But I would agree that,

Anything illogical,
Should not be
Considered,
miraculous
(dogma).

So,
By reason
Premised by some infallible certainty,
We can evaluate whether or not
A miracle is teaching us
Something which is
Infallibly
Certain.

I might not. How do you know?

I don’t infallibly know that,
But you might infallibly know that?

 

[davidv]

Interesting that you say this.

Reason gives certainty (like “scientific certainty”, Climate Change,…)
But not infallible certainty (like all people desiring Happiness, Divine Revelation,…)

So,
By reason
Premised by some infallible certainty,
We can evaluate whether or not
A miracle is teaching us
Something which is
Infallibly
Certain.

I don’t infallibly know that,
But you might infallibly know that?

I don’t what the “that” is in your question. Please clarify.

Also, why did you not address all of my post?