S
stanley123
Guest
Who said they were equal?
What I say is that the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Pontiff of the RCC has given support to the charismatic movement.
- Status
What I say is that the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Pontiff of the RCC has given support to the charismatic movement.
S
stanley123
Guest
How do you explain the following? Which writing suggests that he leans away from the charismatic movement? It sure doesn’t look like a leaning away of any kind here.
“And a survey of the thirty years of the history of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal shows that you have helped many people to rediscover the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their lives, in the life of the Church and in the life of the world - a rediscovery which in many of them has led to a faith in Christ filled with joy and enthusiasm, a great love of the Church and a generous dedication to her mission. In this special year, therefore, I join you in a prayer of praise and thanksgiving for these precious fruits which God has wished to bring to maturity in your communities and, through them, in the Church.”
M
mosher
Guest
Topher:
How do you explain the following? Which writing suggests that he leans away from the charismatic movement? It sure doesn’t look like a leaning away of any kind here.
“And a survey of the thirty years of the history of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal shows that you have helped many people to rediscover the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their lives, in the life of the Church and in the life of the world - a rediscovery which in many of them has led to a faith in Christ filled with joy and enthusiasm, a great love of the Church and a generous dedication to her mission. In this special year, therefore, I join you in a prayer of praise and thanksgiving for these precious fruits which God has wished to bring to maturity in your communities and, through them, in the Church.”
All this discussion of the Charismatic Movement is not related to the topic at hand. I agree that it is important to note it as an important tangent to the discussion but a tit for tat discussion about levels of approval is not a matter for this thread.
T
Topher
Guest
But such is not the official support of the magesterium, and thus the Church has still not officially supported the Charismatic movement.
T
Topher
Guest
Topher:
How do you explain the following? Which writing suggests that he leans away from the charismatic movement? It sure doesn’t look like a leaning away of any kind here.
“And a survey of the thirty years of the history of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal shows that you have helped many people to rediscover the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their lives, in the life of the Church and in the life of the world - a rediscovery which in many of them has led to a faith in Christ filled with joy and enthusiasm, a great love of the Church and a generous dedication to her mission. In this special year, therefore, I join you in a prayer of praise and thanksgiving for these precious fruits which God has wished to bring to maturity in your communities and, through them, in the Church.”
Which Holy Father is this?
And if you read the current Holy Father’s book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, the entire theology and spirituality that he presents, is contrary to the charismatic movement. Anyway, mosher is right, so I will get off of the tangent about the charismatic movement.
M
manualman
Guest
The flaw would have to be mine then. I thought I had made it clear that I had learned that feelings/emotions can be useful as a check, but not as a trump on the moral teaching of the church.
A better example is how I reasoned my way to my position on the permissibility of ‘adopting’ a frozen embryo that would otherwise be destroyed. The church has NOT yet authoritatively addressed this. Many catholics I respect believe this is NOT morally permissible because the church clearly opposes IVF. If not for an emotional ‘gut feel’ that this was somehow unjust to the tiny baby I might have agreed. But my unease made me double check my thought processes.
FACT: Human life begins at conception.
FAITH: IVF and surrogate parenthood is immoral because it violates the right of every child to know he is the product of the self-giving love of a husband and wife, reflective of God himself creating the world.
Upon further thought, I concluded that there is nothing particularly special about implantation. The new life began at CONCEPTION. Therefore if an adoptive couple had nothing to do with the immoral act of the fertilization aspect of the IVF, but merely seek to rescue the doomed child, then implanting an adoptive embryo is no more wrong than adopting a child given up by a single woman who commited fornication.
Not a perfect example because the church has yet to specifically rule my judgement correct. But I strongly think they will. IMO, those who think it won’t haven’t heeded their emotional safety net well enough!
S
stanley123
Guest
stanley123:
If you insist on it, I won’t add anything more to this thread (after this one last post) about the charismatic movement. However, the point I was trying to make is, I think, a valid one and it is related very much to the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is the divorce of faith and reason. My point is simply that the charismatic movement has found a certain amount of support in the RCC and that the charismatic movement does not at all emphasize the importance of reason.
L
lillysan
Guest
I would like to bring the discussion back to the line of thinking of the quotation above. I am not necessarily disagreeing with anyone but I would like some clarification on what say mosher or anyone else means by Reason. At face value the term reason is simple but if one really thinks about it there can be many definitions. Can I please get some clarification?
L
lillysan
Guest
I must add that we must also remember that St. Thomas was a man!!
and that although he is a saint he is not God. 
So if anyone really wants to explain this to me then feel free. 
M
mosher
Guest
This is a great question because few people take the time to know. I mean, how can one know if something is reasonable if they are not clear on what reason is. I think that a good working definition is to give a negative. Reason is the higher function of the soul that seperates truth from falsity according to reality.I would like to bring the discussion back to the line of thinking of the quotation above. I am not necessarily disagreeing with anyone but I would like some clarification on what say mosher or anyone else means by Reason. At face value the term reason is simple but if one really thinks about it there can be many definitions. Can I please get some clarification?
The Church generally recognizes Thomistic Theology & Philosophy (Realism) as superior to any other form (c.f. Aeterni Patris). The methodology used in determining if something is in accord with reason or is false is through the use of the Aristotelian Syllogism (which merely mirrors orderly thought). In using the Logic of Aristotle on can find a proposition true or false. What is false can never be true and what is true in a syllogism must be applied to reality (realism again) to determine if it is true in reality or not.
So for instance we know through revelation that Jesus is fully God and fully Man without one nature taking from the quidity of the other and we know through philosophy that this, while unusual, is not contrary to reason (c.f. Summa Theologica). If it were not reasonable then we would know that we are not interpreting Revelation correctly and must then attempt to reformulate our understanding of Revelation.
In sort, however, reason is - as I said - that function that lets us seperate what is true from what is false in reality.
M
mosher
Guest
In a nutshell St. Thomas was saying what is observably true. As a general rule men place an emphasis on reason over emotions even to a flaw and women place an emphasis on emotions over reason even to a flaw. In particular this is not always the case and he is not saying that women are inferior or they are not capable of the same level of intelligence as men. While he is making the statement deductivelly the same can be “proved” inductively. We see in the way that men and women address social problems is as a rule completely different. This is also displayed in a wide variety of sociological studies and is in keeping with the teachings of John Paul II in his Theology of the Body. Each a compliment to the other but each is different and equality does not imply sameness.I must add that we must also remember that St. Thomas was a man!!
S
stanley123
Guest
Would this be an inherited or an acquired characteristic?
S
stanley123
Guest
But why would not women be inferior if the image of God is not found in them, but the imag of God is found in men?
“man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,”
and
The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, “To the image of God He created him,” it is added, “Male and female He created them” (Gn. 1:27). Moreover it is said “them” in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,” he adds his reason for saying this: “For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.” Summa Theologica I, qu. 93, art. 4 ad 1.
L
lillysan
Guest
If this is the explanation then I could say that I agree very much with what you just stated, “Each a compliment to the other but each is different and equality does not imply sameness.” I would also like to say that although it may that women and men may act in one way or another this does not mean that all act in that specific way everytime. As I believe that you also mentioned, but I wanted to clearly state again. There really is a continuum because we are dealing with human beings. Everyperson womem or man is a little different.
L
lillysan
Guest
This seems to make sense at this point. Obviouly as a catholic I have a pattern of reason for believing that Jesus is fully God and fully Man is true. I would like to know your thouht pattern of reasoning through philosophy that proves the above belief of the Church.
L
lillysan
Guest
I would like to know why,seriously (I am not being sarcastic), you seem to want to prove that women are inferior? Also do you think that this is what St. Thomas is saying? The image of God is found in all human beings, man or women. This is what we look for in others when we love them or fall in love with them. Maybe St. Thomas is refering to the idea that priests should only be men??? This is a total guess as I have not, unfortunately, read all of St. Thomas’s writings.
S
stanley123
Guest
Didn’t you yourself say that you wanted to see a quote from St. Thomas concerning the inferiority of women?
I am giving you the quote:I must say that I would like to see this quote about the inferiority of women by St. Thomas
"… in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,” he adds his reason for saying this: “For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.” Summa Theologica I, qu. 93, art. 4 ad 1.
The claim was made that the system of reasoning used by St. thomas is based on deduction from Reason. Here’s my question: What went wrong with this deduction from Reason that women are created for man, or that in a secondary sense, God is found in man, and not in woman. Because most people today do not believe this to be true.
L
lillysan
Guest
Okay now I understand where you are comming from. I was not trying to make you upset I did not really know why you were asking the question and since we could not talk I did not know really what question you were asking. I must say that this is a good question. Maybe someone else can go through this and explain how this worked.
T
Topher
Guest
Awe, but the divinity of Christ is not something that the Church teaches that man can arrive at by natural reason alone. Rather, this is something that requires divine revelation to be know. But that does not mean that the teaching is unreasonable. It does not violate the laws of logic. If it did, then the Church would not accept it. There is nothing unreasonable about a statement that says, “The one person, God the Son, possess two natures, a divine one and a human one”. Still, I would like to point out that there are some very good historical arguments for the divinity of Christ given by apologists for centuries and more recently by persons such as Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel in “New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” and “The Case for Christ”
T
Topher
Guest
Just because most people do not believe something today, does not mean that those people are right. Furthermore, I think that Thomas needs to be understood in context. Women are equal to men in dignity but, they were created by God to image man and the fact that they tend to let their emotions rule rather than reason is not something that should be considered good. Don’t get me wrong, their are alot of wonderful and beautiful things about women but this is not one of them. On the other hand, men have their problems too, but they tend to be less ruled by their emotions than women.
- Status