-
This is the Regina Coeli Report June 2013 (http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/regina_coeli_report_special_edition_3_1.pdf)
From Regina Coeli Report June 2013.
"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
Can anyone explain what this means?
-
That's Thomistic philosophy. The mind is said to be in possession of the truth when its concept of the world external to it corresponds fully to the reality of that external world.
Example:
1. I see a red car parked outside on the driveway.
2. There really is a red car parked outside on the driveway (reality).
3. I conclude that there is a red car parked outside on the driveway (truth).
In short, "truth" happens when mind meets "reality."
Of course modern philosophy came along to usurp the honored place of this most accurate and commonsensical system of thought, essentially driving a wedge between external reality (if even acknowledged) and the mind's ability to really know it--a movement over the ages to try to do away with the Church's rightful claim to absolute truth, no less!
Modern analytic/linguistic philosophy is even worse (junk I had to study and write theses on in college and grad school), treating questions of truth and reality as "false questions" that the field of philosophy should not even be dealing with.
-
This is the Regina Coeli Report June 2013 (http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/regina_coeli_report_special_edition_3_1.pdf)
From Regina Coeli Report June 2013.
"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
Can anyone explain what this means?
Modernism. The Church has always used very specific and carefully chosen words to express ideas which She teaches, but once formulated by Her, the words and the idea are one and the same. What She has declared is to be known by the words which she has used to express it. In other words a fixed integral truth.
The above presentation seeks to separate them again thereby allowing a particular interpretation of one to change the meaning of the other. The removal of a fixed anchor of a truth.
It leads to all sorts of jolly hijinks such as hermeneutics of continuity, prudential realities, the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012, etc.
-
That's Thomistic philosophy. The mind is said to be in possession of the truth when its concept of the world external to it corresponds fully to the reality of that external world.
Example:
1. I see a red car parked outside on the driveway.
2. There really is a red car parked outside on the driveway (reality).
3. I conclude that there is a red car parked outside on the driveway (truth).
In short, "truth" happens when mind meets "reality."
Of course modern philosophy came along to usurp the honored place of this most accurate and commonsensical system of thought, essentially driving a wedge between external reality (if even acknowledged) and the mind's ability to really know it--a movement over the ages to try to do away with the Church's rightful claim to absolute truth, no less!
Modern analytic/linguistic philosophy is even worse (junk I had to study and write theses on in college and grad school), treating questions of truth and reality as "false questions" that the field of philosophy should not even be dealing with.
Correct answer.
I studied Philosophy at the SSPX seminary, so I'm somewhat qualified to chime in.
JPaul, I think you're way off. I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
I understand your motivation though -- you think the SSPX is compromised so you're going to take everything they say in the worst possible way.
Do you really think the SSPX can't spout Thomism anymore (even if it's just to look good for the Trad crowds), or do you think it will never be correct about anything? Sheesh, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Give them some credit.
And no, they're not that modernist yet. That might come in the future, but if you go around telling people the SSPX is modernist, you're just going to make yourself look foolish. They're cozying up to Modernist Rome, yes. They're trying to excuse the inexcusable (Vatican II, Pope Francis, etc.), yes. That tends to warp one's brain and one's grasp of the truth. But let's not confuse an eventuality or logical outcome with the present reality.
-
Truth isn't, in itself, what is. What is belongs to the category of facts. In the example, the second sentence is the fact of the matter. The first sentence is how we arrive at believing the facts of the matter. The third sentence is where we come to know the truth.
I, too, am confused by J.Paul's explanation.
The Church teaches Truths, that is correct. But we don't have the truth if we don't perceive the facts that the Church identifies when she teaches or if we reject the facts that she gives us. While the teachings are true whether we believe them or not, we may not have the truth in our minds if we do not accept them.
The difference is subtle. I'm just not sure why the simple faithful need to be taught such things. It seems some traditional clergy have a great desire to teach things that really have no place for the general public.
-
"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
Can anyone explain what this means?
holysoulsacademy
*what does 'truth is the conformity of the mind to reality' mean to you?
*after reading several previous posts; did it change your understanding of the above?
-
That's Thomistic philosophy. The mind is said to be in possession of the truth when its concept of the world external to it corresponds fully to the reality of that external world.
Example:
1. I see a red car parked outside on the driveway.
2. There really is a red car parked outside on the driveway (reality).
3. I conclude that there is a red car parked outside on the driveway (truth).
In short, "truth" happens when mind meets "reality."
Of course modern philosophy came along to usurp the honored place of this most accurate and commonsensical system of thought, essentially driving a wedge between external reality (if even acknowledged) and the mind's ability to really know it--a movement over the ages to try to do away with the Church's rightful claim to absolute truth, no less!
Modern analytic/linguistic philosophy is even worse (junk I had to study and write theses on in college and grad school), treating questions of truth and reality as "false questions" that the field of philosophy should not even be dealing with.
Correct answer.
I studied Philosophy at the SSPX seminary, so I'm somewhat qualified to chime in.
JPaul, I think you're way off. I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
I understand your motivation though -- you think the SSPX is compromised so you're going to take everything they say in the worst possible way.
Do you really think the SSPX can't spout Thomism anymore (even if it's just to look good for the Trad crowds), or do you think it will never be correct about anything? Sheesh, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Give them some credit.
And no, they're not that modernist yet. That might come in the future, but if you go around telling people the SSPX is modernist, you're just going to make yourself look foolish. They're cozying up to Modernist Rome, yes. They're trying to excuse the inexcusable (Vatican II, Pope Francis, etc.), yes. That tends to warp one's brain and one's grasp of the truth. But let's not confuse an eventuality or logical outcome with the present reality.
In the context of Fr. Themann's dissertation which interprets and applies the Thomist position in a way that mitigates and justifies the modernist Doctrinal Declaration and associated modernist statements, it is not an incorrect assessment.
As well, they tried to appeal to this very principle to defend their actions while at the same time refusing to submit to it in their assessments of Rome and the situation which led directly to the DD and the "negotiations".
They certainly refused to conform their minds to the reality that was before them. So, I need no bias one way or another towards them to judge this situation as I did, and to deny that there is now liberal thought and action within the Society proper, is once again, not conforming thought to the reality which has been docuмented.
How compromised are they? I don't know but I do know that they have proven themselves as unreliable in some doctrinal matters and principles, and that is adequate to send up warning flags.
-
This is the Regina Coeli Report June 2013 (http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/regina_coeli_report_special_edition_3_1.pdf)
From Regina Coeli Report June 2013.
"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
Can anyone explain what this means?
The linked Regina Coeli Report is a 20-page PDF file.
Can you please announce where, on what page, you found the proposition you're questioning? (Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality.)
Secondly, where is found the second proposition? (Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.)
The first proposition is extremely profound, and represents the culmination of many centuries of inspired wisdom and its power to expose the lies of the devil as evinced in modern 'philosophy'.
The second proposition, however is something else. It is ambiguous and can be therefore interpreted in divergent ways, the worst of which are pairs of reasonable interpretations, respective sides of which practically contradict each other.
Consequently, much development and good fruit is possible beginning and returning to the first proposition. But without a firm foundation there are grave threats of confusion and discord and even heresy possible by attempting to develop the second proposition.
An example of this is the fascination that soulguard has for the so-called philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and the truth of this example's profundity rises to the surface when we observe his visceral reaction to the proper admonition for him to abandon said Kantian (bad) philosophy, because he doesn't like to be told what to do.
ETA: I found the page -- it is page 6 of 20. I don't have time now to
read it though. I will do so later.
.
-
From the philosopher soulguard 2014 AD from his speech before before the crowd of drunken harlots:
"Truth is verified by the potentially universal recognition of it whereas the sign of delusion is the limited number of those who hold something to be true, who do so according to personal conditioning which those outside their number have not"
Conclusion of this = Since the idea of God and Catholic morality can be known by anyone, and since it transcends national and cultural borders, the idea of God and Catholic morality are to be recognized as a truth and the potential for any human to believe in God is to be treated as a factual matter.
-
An example of this is the fascination that soulguard has for the so-called philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and the truth of this example's profundity rises to the surface when we observe his visceral reaction to the proper admonition for him to abandon said Kantian (bad) philosophy, because he doesn't like to be told what to do.
ETA: I found the page -- it is page 6 of 20. I don't have time now to
read it though. I will do so later.
.
I write philosophy in my spare time, and it is in union with the teaching of the church.
I am not apologizing for posting that I found a quote by Kant to be good, and dont see why I need to, after all, do you not believe that the agents of relativism succeeded by mixing truth with lies?
If everything he said was false, why would he be still read centuries later.
-
If you want to be a priest, you have got to love philosophy.
-
From the philosopher soulguard 2014 AD from his speech before before the crowd of drunken harlots:
"Truth is verified by the potentially universal recognition of it whereas the sign of delusion is the limited number of those who hold something to be true, who do so according to personal conditioning which those outside their number have not"
Conclusion of this = Since the idea of God and Catholic morality can be known by anyone, and since it transcends national and cultural borders, the idea of God and Catholic morality are to be recognized as a truth and the potential for any human to believe in God is to be treated as a factual matter.
Essentially I therefore say, that the truth is the truth because it IS. Note how a potentially universal recognition of it is the application of the scientific method to a philosophical question, since such a thing so common among so diverse a base cannot be denied.
-
Proposition
From the philosopher soulguard 2014 AD from his speech before before the crowd of drunken harlots:
"Truth is verified by the potentially universal recognition of it whereas the sign of delusion is the limited number of those who hold something to be true, who do so according to personal conditioning which those outside their number have not"i]
[/b]Corollary
"He that mack’eth on bar wenches ~ may verily come across ccrraazzy biatches…."
-
This is the Regina Coeli Report June 2013 (http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/regina_coeli_report_special_edition_3_1.pdf)
From Regina Coeli Report June 2013.
"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
Can anyone explain what this means?
The linked Regina Coeli Report is a 20-page PDF file.
Can you please announce where, on what page, you found the proposition you're questioning? (Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality.)
Secondly, where is found the second proposition? (Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.)
The first proposition is extremely profound, and represents the culmination of many centuries of inspired wisdom and its power to expose the lies of the devil as evinced in modern 'philosophy'.
The second proposition, however is something else. It is ambiguous and can be therefore interpreted in divergent ways, the worst of which are pairs of reasonable interpretations, respective sides of which practically contradict each other.
Consequently, much development and good fruit is possible beginning and returning to the first proposition. But without a firm foundation there are grave threats of confusion and discord and even heresy possible by attempting to develop the second proposition.
An example of this is the fascination that soulguard has for the so-called philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and the truth of this example's profundity rises to the surface when we observe his visceral reaction to the proper admonition for him to abandon said Kantian (bad) philosophy, because he doesn't like to be told what to do.
ETA: I found the page -- it is page 6 of 20. I don't have time now to
read it though. I will do so later.
.
The Regina Caeli Report linked in the OP is generally an outline of Fr. Themann in his 2-1/2 hour presentation, titled "Resistance to what?" A short letter from Fr. Rostand introduces this "Summary of Fr. Themann's Talk" (pg. 4).
In this Regina Caeli Report, the introductory "Letter from the District Superior," Fr. Rostand, is openly directed against the Resistance, without calling it such. For example, it announces how Fr. Rostand publicly and firmly deplores the "injustice committed by Bishop Williamson and a few dissident priests" in "the recent controversy." He then goes on to explain how the recent controversy consists in a spirit of rebellion evidenced by "false accusations, rash judgments and extrapolations" against the SSPX leadership, that they betrayed the legacy of ABL, accusations which have been repeated (and inadequately answered, which see), but the repetition thereof does not make them any more credible (but Fr. Rostand's persistent inadequacy in answering them would therefore not make his claims any more credible, either!).
Please note that his false accusation that the Resistance has been the cause of the "recent controversy" is an inherent denial of how the XSPX is responsible for the "recent controversy." This is to say that when corrupted leadership tries to subvert a pious union of priests, anyone who stands up to their deviance is the CAUSE of the subversion. This is exactly what happened post Vat.II, as +W points out.
In passing, I can't help but wonder what Fr. Rostand would have to say if we were to accuse him of "false accusations, extrapolations, rash judgments, lies, false rumors, injustice, exaggerations, rash judgments and constant attacks?"
In politics, that's called "mudslinging."
The use of such grossly generalized categories seems unbecoming of anyone to me, especially if he's a priest. One might even say it's an abuse of his "authority" (even though he has no jurisdiction -- maybe that's why he's so miserable?).
From the end of pg. 2 to the top of pg. 3:
Therefore, for the good of the faithful of the U.S. District, I deplore publicly and firmly the injustice committed in the recent controversy by Bishop Williamson and a few dissident priests.
It is indeed an injustice to accuse the Society of betraying the legacy of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, with false accusations, rash judgments and extrapolations. The fact of repeating them over and over does not make them any less false.
Then Fr. Rostand hurls epithets of derision at CathInfo and other such sites on the Internet, urging the Faithful to pay no heed to that man behind the curtain, as it were, and to not participate in such forums, advice which Clavis (and others) take to heart and abide by, following Fr. Rostand's 'intrepid' leadership. Like +W says so well, this is Vat.II revisited:
In a more precise manner, I denounce as immoral and as occasions of sin the websites where so many lies, false rumors, exaggerations, rash judgments and constant attacks on the legitimate authorities of the Society are published. Those who own them or collaborate with them are certainly offending God. I ask the faithful not only to stay away from these websites, but even to stay away from anyone who promotes their content, spirit and rebellion.
Notice how he asserts that Matthew is "certainly offending God" here on CI. Don't forget: Fr. Rostand is a priest.
He then presses on to plead the victim, and ask the Faithful to do penance for and offer their prayers for his agenda, all with the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
These attacks against our Society, this little fortress of Catholic life and Tradition, are fomented clearly by the father of all lies, the devil. That is why we must answer these attacks with supernatural means, by a life of prayer, by accepting our daily crosses and especially those of our duty of state, offering them to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Without bitterness but with great charity, let us also pray for those who are misguided or misguiding. I am confident that once the storm is over, by the grace of God, the Society, with its members and its faithful, will find itself strengthened in the Faith, as well as in Hope and Charity.
Of course, those who are "misguided" or who are "misguiding" MUST be someone else, not the Menzingen-denizens!
This is the framework in which this statement (in the OP) is given.
The statement (in two parts) is found on page 6...
.
-
.
However, page 6 isn't the first place it is found in the Regina Caeli Report (R.C.R). Notice that the place on p.6 begins with "Again..."
It was first found on page 4:
• Truth is a relationship of correspondence between what is really there outside of our head and our mind’s understanding of it, the result of the mind’s conforming itself to what is really there.
• Respect for truth implies a docility to reality and a respect for nuance.
• Truth is not a romantic ideal and is often beautiful or ugly, sublime or mundane, satisfying or humiliating.
• People can wax poetic about “truth” and yet never make any serious effort to acquire it.
In case you missed it, the most important word in the above quote is this one: "nuance." Therefore, the most important bullet-point is the second one:
• Respect for truth implies a docility to reality and a respect for nuance.
The Jesuits became famous for their nuancing the Catholic Faith into oblivion. That isn't what St. Ignatius of Loyola was all about, but the very talented and productive priests of his Society included those who did just that. By exaggerating and relying on nuances of theology, dogma, the canons and decrees of the great Councils, and ex-cathedra definitions of the popes, they nuanced the Faith into oblivion.
By over-emphasis on nuance, there is no truth of God that the devil cannot turn upside-down, to make it look like it means the OPPOSITE of what it says.
Immediately before the bullet-points above in this R.C.R., is found the following:
FIRST PRINCIPLE: The truth is always first.
What is truth?
IT SEEMS to me that if they had been honest, they would have just come out and said what they had in mind all along, which is the reality they want you to have in mind by reading this:
The most important thing about truth is, that when it is 'properly understood' it is NUANCED, and if truth is not nuanced, then it is improperly understood.
That is, there is nothing more important about truth; the most important thing about truth is, that it be nuanced.
Translated into the vernacular, this wants to say:
"Any truth is no truth at all, if it is not a nuanced truth."
.
-
.
The second time truth is mentioned is on page 5:
We must remember that:
• Truth occurs when we judge accurately the reality outside of us.
• Truth is serious and precious but not romantic.
• We face handicaps in our pursuit of truth; because of this, if we do not seriously commit ourselves to judging well, we will not.
• Furthermore, people who do not make serious efforts to judge accurately do not give first importance to truth. They may get emotional about the word truth, but in actuality it is not the most important thing to them.
Forgive me if I presume too much, but it would seem that this fourth bullet accuses the Resistance of the following:
• not making a serious effort to judge accurately (for accuracy in judgment is ENTIRELY dependent upon the NUANCING of truth),
• not giving the first importance to truth (that is, remember, it must be nuanced),
• the Resistance may get emotional about the word truth (for example, by thinking that real truth does not have to be nuanced),
• but in actuality it is not the most important thing to them (meaning that in actuality, real truth is not the most important thing to the Resistance, because to them, real TRUTH does not have to be nuanced).
But I do not think that I presume too much at all. Clavis, I'm sure, would disagree. But Clavis is so 'yesterday'.
Do Not Overlook the implications of this.
Their FIRST PRINCIPLE sets the tone for the whole docuмent. The nuancing of truth is the whole point of this R.C.R. There is nothing that this principle does not touch.
.
-
• Furthermore, people who do not make serious efforts to judge accurately do not give first importance to truth. They may get emotional about the word truth, but in actuality it is not the most important thing to them.
And here is where the notion of selective truth comes in. By this they mean that those whom they critique are considered guilty of not having sufficient love of truth because they do not accept the way that it has been characterized by the SSPX, even though, as we have seen that, Menzingen's description of the truth has been regularly off the mark or in some cases deliberately misleading.
-
.
At this point I would like to refer once again to my post on page two:
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30015&min=5#p2)
This is the Regina Coeli Report June 2013 (http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/regina_coeli_report_special_edition_3_1.pdf)
From Regina Coeli Report June 2013.
"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
Can anyone explain what this means?
The linked Regina Coeli Report (R.C.R.) is a 20-page PDF file.
Can you please announce where, on what page, you found the proposition you're questioning? [ETA: see below] (Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality.)
Secondly, where is found the second proposition? (Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.)
The first proposition is extremely profound, and represents the culmination of many centuries of inspired wisdom and its power to expose the lies of the devil as evinced in modern 'philosophy'.
The second proposition, however is something else. It is ambiguous and can be therefore interpreted in divergent ways, the worst of which are pairs of reasonable interpretations, respective sides of which practically contradict each other.
Consequently, much development and good fruit is possible beginning and returning to the first proposition. But without a firm foundation there are grave threats of confusion and discord and even heresy possible by attempting to develop the second proposition.
An example of this is the fascination that soulguard has for the so-called philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and the truth of this example's profundity rises to the surface when we observe his visceral reaction to the proper admonition for him to abandon said Kantian (bad) philosophy, because he doesn't like to be told what to do.
ETA: I found the page -- it is page 6 of 20. I don't have time now to
read it though. I will do so later.
.
At this point, I would like to draw attention to the paragraph above:
"The second proposition, however is something else. It is ambiguous and can be therefore interpreted in divergent ways, the worst of which are pairs of reasonable interpretations, respective sides of which practically contradict each other."
Do you recall what the "second proposition" is? Here it is:
Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.
Anyone who thinks this is "Thomism" has forgotten all about "Thomism." St. Thomas does not speak like this. This is +Fellay-speak.
St. Thomas doesn't preface his arguments with "it is not a question of (this) but of (that)."
Furthermore, it has not been the Scholastic philosophy of St. Thomas, more appropriately referred to as philosophia perennis, that has delved deeply into the nuances of questioning this and that, including to but not limited to "words," but rather it has been modern "philosophy," such as that of Immanuel Kant, David Hume, and Friedrich Nietzsche (et. al.) that proposes with the blanket statement that all of their oppositions' arguments are "just words."
Of all the things that the Menzingen-denizens could accuse the Resistance of doing, subscribing to the tactics and ideology of such modern 'philosophers' is not among them. For this reason alone, the membership of soulguard is a cancer on the CI forum, as his previous posts in this thread demonstrate.
.
-
:dancing-banana:Truth has nothing to do with my mind or whether or not I conform to it.
-
.
On the contrary, Frances, in regards to YOU, truth has EVERYTHING to do with your mind, and with whether your mind is in conformity with reality.
And in regards to every single human creature who ever lived or ever will live, truth was, is and always shall be, conformity of their mind to reality.
For the Modernist and modern 'philosophers' alike (according to their subjective belief in what truth is), reality is in the mind. That is the foundation of all modern errors.
As the great Pope St. Pius X explained so well in Pascendi domenici gregis, all of Modernism erupts from the 3-word sentence uttered by the (modern) philosopher: "God is immanent."
(If you don't understand what that means or what it's implications are for this topic, then THAT is the problem.)
It might not seem like much, but it is really everything they have. If this lie is exposed for the lie that it is, all of Modernism and the bad thinking of modern 'philosophers' collapses like the house of cards that it is.
.
-
:dancing-banana:
What I mean to say, very simply, is that Truth does not depend upon me. It is the other way around.
-
.
My previous post is all about something that is so easily misunderstood, that I really ought to develop it a little better.
For the Modernist and modern 'philosophers' alike (according to their subjective belief in what truth is), reality is in the mind. That is the foundation of all modern errors.
When I say that modern 'philosophers' profess that "reality is in the mind," they are saying something very different from "Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality."
What they are saying is that truth must be nuanced, and the nuancing of truth is something that we should respect. Therefore, the R.C.R. with Fr. Rostand's overwhelming approval (as if he had written the whole thing, but I highly doubt that he did -- probably some other author wrote it) subscribes to and supports modern 'philosophy' under the GUISE of "Thomism!"
This is deception of the worst kind!
To the modern 'philosopher', one CREATES truth in one's mind, just by thinking it (whatever "it" is). In this way, it is said, "Reality is in the mind," which is the lie of modern 'philosophers', and which would likewise be the principle upon which Fr. Rostand (or his ghost-writer) would have all of the SSPX subscribe to, in his false teaching as WEAKLY developed in this R.C.R. of June 2013.
This is a huge topic and it could easily take up tens of thousands of words to exemplify and make application to current matters including the crisis in the SSPX.
.
-
:dancing banana:
What I mean to say, very simply, is that Truth does not depend upon me. It is the other way around.
This is a good example of why women do not usually belong in a discussion on philosophy.
News flash: It's not all about you.
.
-
To Neil
:dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana:
-
To Neil
:dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana:
-
Neil Obstat says: Do you recall what the "second proposition" is? Here it is:
Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.
Anyone who thinks this is "Thomism" has forgotten all about "Thomism." St. Thomas does not speak like this. This is +Fellay-speak.
St. Thomas does speak this way. See below (bolded) where he points out that wisdom is not concerned with “words.” His point is much the same as the one which Fr. Themann is making.
“…ideo ipsa quidditas est sicut potentia, et suum esse acquisitum est sicut actus; et ita per consequens est ibi compositio ex actu et potentia; et si ista potentia vocetur materia, erit compositus ex materia et forma: quamvis hoc sit omnino aequivocuм dictum: sapientis enim est non curare de nominibus (for wisdom is not concerned with words).” Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 3 q. 1 a. 1 co.
Todd
-
.
In answer to this:
Neil Obstat says: Do you recall what the "second proposition" is? Here it is:
Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.
Anyone who thinks this is "Thomism" has forgotten all about "Thomism." St. Thomas does not speak like this. This is +Fellay-speak.
St. Thomas does speak this way. See below (bolded) where he points out that wisdom is not concerned with “words.” His point is much the same as the one which Fr. Themann is making.
“…ideo ipsa quidditas est sicut potentia, et suum esse acquisitum est sicut actus; et ita per consequens est ibi compositio ex actu et potentia; et si ista potentia vocetur materia, erit compositus ex materia et forma: quamvis hoc sit omnino aequivocuм dictum: sapientis enim est non curare de nominibus (for wisdom is not concerned with words).” Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 3 q. 1 a. 1 co.
Todd
Maybe you should pay closer attention, Todd K.
St. Thomas does not speak this way: "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
For one, your quote is not concerning truth, but concerning wisdom. If it were to be anything like the cited proposition from the R.C.R., it would have had to have said, for wisdom is not primarily concerned with a question of words, but rather wisdom is concerned primarily with a question of ideas which are represented by the words.
There are a number of reasons why St. Thomas did not speak this way, and there are even more reasons why he WOULD NEVER HAVE spoken this way.
So while it's nice of you to try so diligently to look up something all of a sudden to support your heros, The Great One, Fellay, and his functionary, Fr. Themann, you're spinning your wheels.
You have a few years of study to do first, so I'll catch you around February 2016, at this rate.
.
-
Neil,
You seem to think that merely thumping your chest wins an argument. In the din of the drumbeat of your fists, you seem to have missed the irony that your quibble over the word “wisdom” as opposed to the word “truth” in the passage from St. Thomas speaks directly to the question at issue—one that you fail to understand.
Let me draw it out for you. In this text (and other parallel texts) St. Thomas is considering whether the angels are composed of matter and form. He argues (contra others such as the Franciscans who held that the angels have “spiritual” matter) that, while they do have potency (insofar as their essence is not their esse), they do not have matter. Unless, that is, you mean by “matter,” any potency whatever--though this is an equivocal use of the term “matter.” “Fine, call it matter,” says St. Thomas, “for wisdom (i.e. the highest science of truth) is not concerned merely with words, but with the proper understanding of the realities behind them.”
St. Thomas speaks this way often. This is, it seems to me, the same idea that Fr. Themann is expressing (he got it from St. Thomas) when he says that truth is concerned, not so much with the “words,” but with the thoughts or ideas that they are meant to express.
You say: “There are a number of reasons why St. Thomas did not speak this way, and there are even more reasons why he WOULD NEVER HAVE spoken this way.”
Please share with us these “number of reasons” why St. Thomas did not speak this way and the “even more reasons why he would never have.”
Todd
-
.
In answer to this:
Neil Obstat says: Do you recall what the "second proposition" is? Here it is:
Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.
Anyone who thinks this is "Thomism" has forgotten all about "Thomism." St. Thomas does not speak like this. This is +Fellay-speak.
St. Thomas does speak this way. See below (bolded) where he points out that wisdom is not concerned with “words.” His point is much the same as the one which Fr. Themann is making.
“…ideo ipsa quidditas est sicut potentia, et suum esse acquisitum est sicut actus; et ita per consequens est ibi compositio ex actu et potentia; et si ista potentia vocetur materia, erit compositus ex materia et forma: quamvis hoc sit omnino aequivocuм dictum: sapientis enim est non curare de nominibus (for wisdom is not concerned with words).” Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 3 q. 1 a. 1 co.
Todd
Maybe you should pay closer attention, Todd K.
St. Thomas does not speak this way: "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
For one, your quote is not concerning truth, but concerning wisdom. If it were to be anything like the cited proposition from the R.C.R., it would have had to have said, for wisdom is not primarily concerned with a question of words, but rather wisdom is concerned primarily with a question of ideas which are represented by the words.
There are a number of reasons why St. Thomas did not speak this way, and there are even more reasons why he WOULD NEVER HAVE spoken this way.
So while it's nice of you to try so diligently to look up something all of a sudden to support your heros, The Great One, Fellay, and his functionary, Fr. Themann, you're spinning your wheels.
You have a few years of study to do first, so I'll catch you around February 2016, at this rate.
.
This is precisely what Fr. Themann does, he overlays the Thomist concepts upon an incompatible action.
Remember, this was all said in defense of the Doctrinal Declaration and related matters. Essentially saying that we said the correct things but we just used different words to say them. Well the truth of the matter is that they said the wrongs things specifically because of the words which they used to say them. The modernism in the docuмent and other statements was betrayed and unmasked directly by the language that they used.
And then they march out Fr.Themann to infer that the modernism is springing forth from suspicious minds and not from what they had written.
When the theology of the Church is twisted and enlisted to achieve political and worldly ends, we are in serious trouble.
Seeking to cover wrongheaded ideas with nubilous language.
-
Neil,
You seem to think that merely thumping your chest wins an argument. In the din of the drumbeat of your fists, you seem to have missed the irony that your quibble over the word “wisdom” as opposed to the word “truth” in the passage from St. Thomas speaks directly to the question at issue—one that you fail to understand.
Let me draw it out for you. In this text (and other parallel texts) St. Thomas is considering whether the angels are composed of matter and form. He argues (contra others such as the Franciscans who held that the angels have “spiritual” matter) that, while they do have potency (insofar as their essence is not their esse), they do not have matter. Unless, that is, you mean by “matter,” any potency whatever--though this is an equivocal use of the term “matter.” “Fine, call it matter,” says St. Thomas, “for wisdom (i.e. the highest science of truth) is not concerned merely with words, but with the proper understanding of the realities behind them.”
In the days of St. Thomas, when his adversaries were other Catholics, he did not have to contend with the assertions of Modernists and their wholesale denial of everything spiritual. Maybe you didn't know that, Todd K. The discussion of matter and potency is not the topic of Fr. Themann's screed. He is talking about prudential decisions and the morality of human acts.
Different category of philosophy.
Maybe your hobby is mixing apples and oranges, but this is not a produce juggling act.
You'll have to go to one of Fr. Themann's classrooms for that, apparently -- or, is that where you go the idea in the first place?
St. Thomas speaks this way often. This is, it seems to me, the same idea that Fr. Themann is expressing (he got it from St. Thomas) when he says that truth is concerned, not so much with the “words,” but with the thoughts or ideas that they are meant to express.
Once again, those are your words, not the Angelic Doctor's.
You say: “There are a number of reasons why St. Thomas did not speak this way, and there are even more reasons why he WOULD NEVER HAVE spoken this way.”
Please share with us these “number of reasons” why St. Thomas did not speak this way and the “even more reasons why he would never have.”
Todd
Dear Todd K,
In your vain attempt to defend the indefensible, you are trying to drag out writings from 700 years ago that refer to things being discussed at that time, that is, philosophical points of spiritual matter and temporal matter, that of angels and of men. Fr. Themann is talking about no such thing, in case you didn't notice.
When St. Thomas is speaking of angels it is not comparable to when Fr. Themann is speaking about our reactions today, to the way modern philosophers have denied the relevance of matter and form wholesale -- something that was unheard of in the days of St. Thomas.
St. Thomas did not have to cope for 10 minutes with hecklers denying to his face the fact of knowledge in the mind. Or, can you find some quotes of his that address such matters, so you can prove me wrong?
You have to understand philosophia perennis (a.k.a. Thomistic philosophy) before you can apply what St. Thomas said to present situations. We have other members here on CI who enjoy yanking articles out of the Summa in hopes to bolster their own erroneous interpretations of Church teachings.
It's certainly looking like the "philosophy" work going on in Winona is all about how to MISAPPLY the principles and intricate beauty of the thinking of St. Thomas so as to scramble the doctrine and confuse the harmonious threads of logic, so as to serve a HIGHER PURPOSE, let's say, normalization with Modernism! Yeah! That's the ticket!!
If Menzingen says it's a good idea, then HEY, who are we to question authority?
"The faithful must be very cautious and not get themselves into embarrassing situations!" -- Can you find where St. Thomas said that, too, Todd K?
So if you somehow enjoy feeling smug and sneaky (like your mentors have taught you?) it's not going to work here. Sorry for the shocker.
Produce the place where you find St. Thomas saying anything like this: "...for wisdom is not primarily concerned with a question of words, but rather wisdom is concerned primarily with a question of ideas which are represented by the words." Or, is the reason you are eager to change the subject because you are unable to find anything like that?
I expect the latter is the case.
.
-
Neil,
You seem to think that merely thumping your chest wins an argument. In the din of the drumbeat of your fists, you seem to have missed the irony that your quibble over the word “wisdom” as opposed to the word “truth” in the passage from St. Thomas speaks directly to the question at issue—one that you fail to understand.
Let me draw it out for you. In this text (and other parallel texts) St. Thomas is considering whether the angels are composed of matter and form. He argues (contra others such as the Franciscans who held that the angels have “spiritual” matter) that, while they do have potency (insofar as their essence is not their esse), they do not have matter. Unless, that is, you mean by “matter,” any potency whatever--though this is an equivocal use of the term “matter.” “Fine, call it matter,” says St. Thomas, “for wisdom (i.e. the highest science of truth) is not concerned merely with words, but with the proper understanding of the realities behind them.”
In the days of St. Thomas, when his adversaries were other Catholics, he did not have to contend with the assertions of Modernists and their wholesale denial of everything spiritual. Maybe you didn't know that, Todd K. The discussion of matter and potency is not the topic of Fr. Themann's screed. He is talking about prudential decisions and the morality of human acts.
Different category of philosophy.
Maybe your hobby is mixing apples and oranges, but this is not a produce juggling act.
You'll have to go to one of Fr. Themann's classrooms for that, apparently -- or, is that where you go the idea in the first place?
St. Thomas speaks this way often. This is, it seems to me, the same idea that Fr. Themann is expressing (he got it from St. Thomas) when he says that truth is concerned, not so much with the “words,” but with the thoughts or ideas that they are meant to express.
Once again, those are your words, not the Angelic Doctor's.
You say: “There are a number of reasons why St. Thomas did not speak this way, and there are even more reasons why he WOULD NEVER HAVE spoken this way.”
Please share with us these “number of reasons” why St. Thomas did not speak this way and the “even more reasons why he would never have.”
Todd
Dear Todd K,
In your vain attempt to defend the indefensible, you are trying to drag out writings from 700 years ago that refer to things being discussed at that time, that is, philosophical points of spiritual matter and temporal matter, that of angels and of men. Fr. Themann is talking about no such thing, in case you didn't notice.
This is funny! You claim that St. Thomas does not speak like Father Themann when Fr. says that truth is more concerned with the ideas that words express than with the words and when I show you that St. Thomas does in fact speak this way, you claim that I am dragging out 700 year old writings of St. Thomas. Are there present day writings of St. Thomas that I should have referred to when showing how he speaks and thinks? Which St. Thomas exactly were you referring to when you claimed that he does not speak as Fr. Themann does?
When St. Thomas is speaking of angels it is not comparable to when Fr. Themann is speaking about our reactions today, to the way modern philosophers have denied the relevance of matter and form wholesale -- something that was unheard of in the days of St. Thomas.
St. Thomas did not have to cope for 10 minutes with hecklers denying to his face the fact of knowledge in the mind. Or, can you find some quotes of his that address such matters, so you can prove me wrong?
If I were to show you that he dealt with such hecklers on such topics I am sure that you would claim that he engaged and denied them in writing and not to their face, so it does not count.
You have to understand philosophia perennis (a.k.a. Thomistic philosophy) before you can apply what St. Thomas said to present situations. We have other members here on CI who enjoy yanking articles out of the Summa in hopes to bolster their own erroneous interpretations of Church teachings.
Thank you for this keen insight. All these years that I have been studying and teaching Thomistic philosophy and now I know that "you have to understand it before you can apply it." That is profound!
It's certainly looking like the "philosophy" work going on in Winona is all about how to MISAPPLY the principles and intricate beauty of the thinking of St. Thomas so as to scramble the doctrine and confuse the harmonious threads of logic, so as to serve a HIGHER PURPOSE, let's say, normalization with Modernism! Yeah! That's the ticket!!
Does any of this have anything to do with the question at issue?
If Menzingen says it's a good idea, then HEY, who are we to question authority?
"The faithful must be very cautious and not get themselves into embarrassing situations!" -- Can you find where St. Thomas said that, too, Todd K?
So if you somehow enjoy feeling smug and sneaky (like your mentors have taught you?) it's not going to work here. Sorry for the shocker.
feeling "sneaky"??
Produce the place where you find St. Thomas saying anything like this: "...for wisdom is not primarily concerned with a question of words, but rather wisdom is concerned primarily with a question of ideas which are represented by the words." Or, is the reason you are eager to change the subject because you are unable to find anything like that?
I expect the latter is the case.
I gave you a text where St. Thomas is stating the above idea (notice one can state an idea with various words) and I explained the text and the idea in question within the context of the text. Instead of speaking in generalities, why don't you give us the correct interpretation of the text and show how and why my interpretation is wrong.
.
-
.
In answer to this:
Neil Obstat says: Do you recall what the "second proposition" is? Here it is:
Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.
Anyone who thinks this is "Thomism" has forgotten all about "Thomism." St. Thomas does not speak like this. This is +Fellay-speak.
St. Thomas does speak this way. See below (bolded) where he points out that wisdom is not concerned with “words.” His point is much the same as the one which Fr. Themann is making.
“…ideo ipsa quidditas est sicut potentia, et suum esse acquisitum est sicut actus; et ita per consequens est ibi compositio ex actu et potentia; et si ista potentia vocetur materia, erit compositus ex materia et forma: quamvis hoc sit omnino aequivocuм dictum: sapientis enim est non curare de nominibus (for wisdom is not concerned with words).” Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 3 q. 1 a. 1 co.
Todd
Maybe you should pay closer attention, Todd K.
St. Thomas does not speak this way: "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
For one, your quote is not concerning truth, but concerning wisdom. If it were to be anything like the cited proposition from the R.C.R., it would have had to have said, for wisdom is not primarily concerned with a question of words, but rather wisdom is concerned primarily with a question of ideas which are represented by the words.
There are a number of reasons why St. Thomas did not speak this way, and there are even more reasons why he WOULD NEVER HAVE spoken this way.
So while it's nice of you to try so diligently to look up something all of a sudden to support your heros, The Great One, Fellay, and his functionary, Fr. Themann, you're spinning your wheels.
You have a few years of study to do first, so I'll catch you around February 2016, at this rate.
.
This is precisely what Fr. Themann does, he overlays the Thomist concepts upon an incompatible action.
Very well said, J.Paul!
Remember, this was all said in defense of the Doctrinal Declaration and related matters. Essentially saying that, we said the correct things but we just used different words to say them.
Well the truth of the matter is that they said the wrong things specifically because of the words which they used to say them. The Modernism in the docuмent and other statements was betrayed and unmasked directly by the language that they used!
And then they march out Fr.Themann to infer [imply] that the Modernism is springing forth from suspicious minds and not from what they had written.
When the theology of the Church is twisted and enlisted to achieve political and worldly ends, we are in serious trouble.
Seeking to cover wrongheaded ideas with [nebulous] language.
I hope you don't mind the patches. I type like that too when I'm tired.
You've made some very useful observations. Thank you.
-
.
This is funny! You claim that St. Thomas does not speak like Father Themann when Fr. says that truth is more concerned with the ideas that words express than with the words and when I show you that St. Thomas does in fact speak this way, you claim that I am dragging out 700 year old writings of St. Thomas. Are there present day writings of St. Thomas that I should have referred to when showing how he speaks and thinks? Which St. Thomas exactly were you referring to when you claimed that he does not speak as Fr. Themann does?
...
feeling "sneaky"??
We're both talking about the same St. Thomas Aquinas. And I don't expect anyone to find "more recent" words of his. But please try to notice that the words quoted in the OP of this thread, now going on for 31 replies, are not the words of St. Thomas (Aquinas).
You must not want to think it's possible that Fr. Themann (or the author) is using St. Thomas out of context. Neither of the two propositions he used are direct quotes of St. Thomas. The first proposition I have no problem with, because it is sound philosophy. The second one is problematic because it is ambiguous, and it is used to misrepresent sound philosophy.
I have already stated that St. Thomas would never speak this way, and you're demanding that I prove it. It's my opinion. Do you demand that I prove to you that my opinion is correct? Am I not entitled to my opinion? Your challenge to me is entirely based on YOUR opinion, that the author (Fr. Themann?) is using legitimate reference to St. Thomas. Well, that's your opinion and I do not agree with it.
Your attitude and manner is not conducive to discussing philosophy, and it would be asking for more insults from you to attempt to do so. This, BTW, is the very reason modern universities and NovusOrdo seminaries no longer study these things, but instead delve into the works of Auguste Comte, Alfred Whitehead, and David Hume ("the most important philosopher ever to write in English" - Stanford website).
Produce the place where you find St. Thomas saying anything like this: "...for wisdom is not primarily concerned with a question of words, but rather wisdom is concerned primarily with a question of ideas which are represented by the words." Or, is the reason you are eager to change the subject because you are unable to find anything like that?
I expect the latter is the case.
I gave you a text where St. Thomas is stating the above idea (notice one can state an idea with various words) and I explained the text and the idea in question within the context of the text. Instead of speaking in generalities, why don't you give us the correct interpretation of the text and show how and why my interpretation is wrong.
J.Paul did a pretty good job of pointing out how the topics are being mixed. Where St. Thomas is speaking about angels and their substance, his terms are then later used by Fr. Themann (or the author) to talk about morality and judgment. And for you, that's just fine, because apparently you don't know any better, and if Fr. Themann (or the author) is doing it, it MUST be fine (correct?). Therein lies the rub. If you are loyal to them to the point where everything Fr Themann (or the author) says must be okay because he says it, nothing I tell you will make any difference.
The SSPX used to warn against the very ambiguity that the R.C.R. author touches on here.
The Opening Post asks a very good question:
This is the Regina Coeli Report June 2013 (http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/regina_coeli_report_special_edition_3_1.pdf)
From Regina Coeli Report June 2013.
"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
Can anyone explain what this means?
I have already stated I have no problem with "Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality." And you, Todd K., apparently don't have any problem with that, either. That is, if you do have a problem with it -- whether it's because you don't understand its application or implications, or, if you do understand them, have not said as much -- you have not demonstrated any of this. Your concern is with my questioning of the second proposition, because I say that the author has not quoted St. Thomas directly, but has extracted a theme from an inappropriate topic and has misapplied it to his own topic and agenda.
When Bishop Fellay complains that he was "quoted out of context" his minions have no problem with that, but when he or his functionaries misquote St. Thomas out of context and without using direct quotes, his minions come running to their defense when the Resistance questions it.
Very interesting.
The burden of proof is not on me to show why this misapplication of St. Thomas' writings is not proper. The burden of proof rather is on the author, or if you so choose upon you, to defend the author's choice of these words.
Nor do I blame you for your reaction to this, because you are merely following the example of +Fellay, when he is questioned like this, for his response is not an intelligible defense of his poor choice of words, but rather a blanket complaint that anyone DARES to question him and that HE is the one being "quoted out of context." Nor does he ever ONCE give any example of what he means by "Internet rumour." Therefore, given the example you have chosen to follow, I'm not surprised you're behaving this way.
Since your role models demonstrate an elitism and haughtiness so as to ignore the substance of reasonable questions, I ought to give you credit for not responding to me in kind.
Nonetheless, your attempt to defend the author's choice of these words falls short. I do not say that you didn't try. But what you answered (while it seems you think it was adequate) was not adequate. Let me recap this exchange:
HERE[/url] Todd K] Neil Obstat says: Do you recall what the "second proposition" is? Here it is:
Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.
Anyone who thinks this is "Thomism" has forgotten all about "Thomism." St. Thomas does not speak like this. This is +Fellay-speak.
St. Thomas does speak this way. See below (bolded) where he points out that wisdom is not concerned with “words.” His point is much the same as the one which Fr. Themann is making.
“…ideo ipsa quidditas est sicut potentia, et suum esse acquisitum est sicut actus; et ita per consequens est ibi compositio ex actu et potentia; et si ista potentia vocetur materia, erit compositus ex materia et forma: quamvis hoc sit omnino aequivocuм dictum: sapientis enim est non curare de nominibus (for wisdom is not concerned with words).” Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 3 q. 1 a. 1 co.
Todd
I ran out of time. I'll have to come back to this later.
.
-
Neil wins, he is right, the other fellow is wrong. :judge:
-
Neil wins, he is right, the other fellow is wrong. :judge:
I have to write Ko-nk-el because the CI system won't allow the name for whatever reason.
If only it were that simple. There's a lot more to this. Four posts up Mr. Ko-nk-el has mixed his replies amidst mine, the first time using blue font and the second time making no distinction. Now how is anyone supposed to know who wrote what? For example, Ko-nk-el has the following under a quote of me:
...
When St. Thomas is speaking of angels it is not comparable to when Fr. Themann is speaking about our reactions today, to the way modern philosophers have denied the relevance of matter and form wholesale -- something that was unheard of in the days of St. Thomas.
St. Thomas did not have to cope for 10 minutes with hecklers denying to his face the fact of knowledge in the mind. Or, can you find some quotes of his that address such matters, so you can prove me wrong?
If I were to show you that he dealt with such hecklers on such topics I am sure that you would claim that he engaged and denied them in writing and not to their face, so it does not count.
You have to understand philosophia perennis (a.k.a. Thomistic philosophy) before you can apply what St. Thomas said to present situations. We have other members here on CI who enjoy yanking articles out of the Summa in hopes to bolster their own erroneous interpretations of Church teachings.
Thank you for this keen insight. All these years that I have been studying and teaching Thomistic philosophy and now I know that "you have to understand it before you can apply it." That is profound!
It's certainly looking like the "philosophy" work going on in Winona is all about how to MISAPPLY the principles and intricate beauty of the thinking of St. Thomas so as to scramble the doctrine and confuse the harmonious threads of logic, so as to serve a HIGHER PURPOSE, let's say, normalization with Modernism! Yeah! That's the ticket!!
Does any of this have anything to do with the question at issue?
If Menzingen says it's a good idea, then HEY, who are we to question authority?
"The faithful must be very cautious and not get themselves into embarrassing situations!" -- Can you find where St. Thomas said that, too, Todd K?
...
Mr. K added no text in his own quote box, as shown.
If I wrote all that, it would be at least unlike any of my other posts.
Todd K, if you're reading this, please realize you can't add text to your quote of someone else and expect to carry on a conversation, even in mundane topics, but in philosophy it would be utterly nonsense.
.
-
Neil,
This is my first real attempt at trying to post here with quotes etc. It seems that it did not work the first time. I will not attempt it.
"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
The above quote was what was at issue in our discussion. J. Paul called the first statement modernism and, while you recognized the truth of the first statement, you claimed the following about the second statement:
"Anyone who thinks this is "Thomism" has forgotten all about "Thomism." St. Thomas does not speak like this. This is +Fellay-speak."
The truth of both of these statements is philosophy 101 for anyone who has studied St. Thomas a bit. When I showed you that St. Thomas does in fact "speak this way," you denied it and claimed that there are many reasons that he did not and would not.
I ask you to address the text where I showed that he does speak this way and you do not. I ask you for these supposed many reasons that he does not nor would not speak this way and you fall silent. The only response from you are insults and vague generalities.
Now you want to pretend that the question at issue all along was really the "application" of the truth of the second statement. I have not once spoken about Fr. Themann's use of the truth of the second statement. That was never the issue. The issue was rather, whether or not it is a Thomistic notion. Obviously any debate about the right or wrong application of it would have to first depend upon us agreeing that, in itself, the notion is Thomistic (really, it is just plain common sense).
Let's try to take the issue of whether or not St. Thomas speaks this way and Fr. Themann's use or misuse of the notion out of the picture. Why do you yourself think that there is a problem with the statement, "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand"?
Todd
-
Ted,
I did not call the first statement modernist. I referred to the combination as whole as modernism, and which was a classic example of stating something perfectly orthodox, then following with a statement which dislodges the first statement's truth by introducing a subjective intervention in the form of ambiguous words and construction.
This is what was done in the Doctrinal Declaration, this is what Fr. Themann is attempting to defend. Once again, using a Thomistic concept and providing a qualifying interpretation which then allows it to be used in doing something that it was never intended to do by St. Thomas.
You must look objectively at the Declaration which was in question at the time. They did not use both statements in the same manner. Appealing to St. Thomas using both and then only abiding by his intent in one.
Much akin to spitting on our heads and claiming that it is raining.
The whole affair was not an honest linguistic transaction by any means. And Fr. Themann's and Menzingen's wrong usage is indeed the issue. That is the whole basis of this concept being the subject of the controversy.
-
Aha! My suspicions were right!
That Report was not meant to clarify, but instead confuse or perhaps bewilder.
An attempt to have simple folk feel that the problems happening within the Society are beyond the grasp of their intellect, so they should just be quiet, go to Mass and forget about it.
:fryingpan: :fryingpan: :fryingpan:
-
.
...
Let's try to take the issue of whether or not St. Thomas speaks this way and Fr. Themann's use or misuse of the notion out of the picture. Why do you yourself think that there is a problem with the statement, "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand"?
...
I have to write "Kon-kel" because the CI system is programmed to eliminate the "onkel" when I write the whole name, intact. I have no idea why that is the case, but it is what it is.
"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand"(?)
Why do I think there is a problem, indeed?!
Let me count the ways.....
Ostensibly, one might say, "Truth is not a question of words," and leave it at that, but doing so, one would be saying practically nothing. Curiously, one might equally say, "Truth is a question of words," since the quoted proposition is entirely AMBIGUOUS as to what is and/or is not truth. It equally says that truth is not a question, and as well, it says that truth is not FIRSTLY a question (implying that it is perhaps secondarily a question, and that when we are only concerned with what truth is "firstly," we would be entirely UNconcerned with it's being as a question, therefore, for our purposes right now, truth is NOT a question). Maybe you, Todd Kon-kel, are unfamiliar with what "ambiguity" means. Let me explain it to you. When one proposition can legitimately be interpreted to mean two equally opposite things, the proposition is, per se, unintelligible, meaning that, it has no meaning. If you are a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche, you could run away with that conclusion saying that none of this has any meaning, because it is "just words." But we are not here, hopefully, to entertain the nonsense of such willfully obstinate haters of everything good, true and beautiful, are we? I'm not, but I don't know about you.
You are trying my patience with your feigned proficiency with philosophy when you immediately demonstrate utter ignorance of the most basic distinctions in logic. Have you, Todd Kon-kel, ever studied logic at all?
.
.
.
.
Therefore, it is of little use to pursue that proposition (Truth is / is not a question of words). Let us move on, then, to the next item, which is much more productive:
The first and pre-eminent direct implication of this proposition is the following proposition:
"Truth is firstly a question of the ideas for which words stand."
Taken in two installments, the first part of which is:
"Truth is firstly a question." -- That is BTW, a complete sentence, and it is a proposition.
From this proposition follow directly these consequents:
Truth is a question.
MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, truth is a question.
More than anything truth can represent, truth is a question.
More than anything or anyone that has been called "Truth," truth is firstly a question.
Setting all of ontology aside as superfluous, truth is firstly a question.
If truth is firstly a question, then truth cannot be an answer.
Truth with all of its constituent elements, and all things known, are mutually exclusive.
Truth does not answer anything, but instead, truth raises doubts.
Truth is, in a word, unknowable.
Truth, could be, for example, non-existent.
Truth, for all we know, might be entirely imaginary.
Truth is found in the realm of the unknown.
Truth is not found anywhere, for it cannot be found.
Truth has no substance.
Truth is a chimera, a mirage, a pseudo-reality.
If God is truth then God does not exist.
There is no God but truth, but there is no truth, therefore God is not.
Truth is more than one question.
Truth is a series of questions which has an order of prominence, one to the next.
Truth can be arranged according to primary, secondary, &c., constituent questions.
The number of questions which constitute truth is not known.
The number of questions which constitute truth could be infinite.
It may be impossible to know how many questions there are which constitute truth.
Even if the number of questions that constitute truth could be known, the number cannot be communicated.
And so on.
This INANE proposition by which you have exposed yourself, Todd Kon-kel, as one to which you have some curious allurement, is an open-ended oxymoron with no end in sight, and I am here to tell you about it, since you insist. That is, if you care to learn. That part's up to you.
In other words, this statement you are wont to defend, claiming that it is the ilk of St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, is no such thing, at all, for the Angelic Doctor does not speak in such terms. If you knew anything at all about St. Thomas, you would know that. Your paltry and weak defense of the indefensible speaks for itself.
Furthermore, St. Thomas does not speak this way, but Bishop Fellay does.
St. Thomas does not approach topics with qualifying statements like "A is not firstly a question of B but of the ideas for which the B stands." But +F does this all the time, like once a week or more.
St. Thomas does not use the idiom "It's not a question of X but of Z." But that's one of +F's favorite muses.
Now, St. Thomas does mention the distinction between words and the ideas they represent. He was not the first to do so. The ancient Greeks took up this topic. It was Plato, for example, who believed and taught that reality was more in the ideas represented by words than in the words themselves, whereas it was Aristotle who held a different view, that the words used were intimately linked with the abstract ideas, and as such are just as important as the ideas.
I hope I don't have to inform you of a certain person who was known not as "The Idea" but as "The Word."
Does St. John in his first chapter say, "In the beginning was the Idea, and the Idea was with God and the Idea was God?"
Even today, those whose preference is for the path that Plato took tend to be of the fringe variety, whereas those who adhere to the principles and foundation laid by Aristotle (and St. Thomas Aquinas is one of them!) tend to promote a more Catholic kind of philosophy.
Shall we proceed to part two?
.
-
Neil formulates his objection to the statement that “Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which they stand” as follows:
Why do I think there is a problem, indeed?!
Let me count the ways.....
Ostensibly, one might say, "Truth is not a question of words," and leave it at that, but doing so, one would be saying practically nothing. Curiously, one might equally say, "Truth is a question of words," since the quoted proposition is entirely AMBIGUOUS as to what is and/or is not truth. It equally says that truth is not a question, and as well, it says that truth is not FIRSTLY a question (implying that it is perhaps secondarily a question, and that when we are only concerned with what truth is "firstly," we would be entirely UNconcerned with it's being as a question, therefore, for our purposes right now, truth is NOT a question). Maybe you, Todd Kon-kel, are unfamiliar with what "ambiguity" means. Let me explain it to you. When one proposition can legitimately be interpreted to mean two equally opposite things, the proposition is, per se, unintelligible, meaning that, it has no meaning. If you are a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche, you could run away with that conclusion saying that none of this has any meaning, because it is "just words." But we are not here, hopefully, to entertain the nonsense of such willfully obstinate haters of everything good, true and beautiful, are we? I'm not, but I don't know about you.
He says that the statements below follow from holding that truth is firstly about ideas rather than words:
Truth is a question.
MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, truth is a question.
More than anything truth can represent, truth is a question.
More than anything or anyone that has been called "Truth," truth is firstly a question.
Setting all of ontology aside as superfluous, truth is firstly a question.
If truth is firstly a question, then truth cannot be an answer.
Truth with all of its constituent elements, and all things known, are mutually exclusive.
Truth does not answer anything, but instead, truth raises doubts.
Truth is, in a word, unknowable.
Truth, could be, for example, non-existent.
Truth, for all we know, might be entirely imaginary.
Truth is found in the realm of the unknown.
Truth is not found anywhere, for it cannot be found.
Truth has no substance.
Truth is a chimera, a mirage, a pseudo-reality.
If God is truth then God does not exist.
There is no God but truth, but there is no truth, therefore God is not.
Truth is more than one question.
Truth is a series of questions which has an order of prominence, one to the next.
Truth can be arranged according to primary, secondary, &c., constituent questions.
The number of questions which constitute truth is not known.
The number of questions which constitute truth could be infinite.
It may be impossible to know how many questions there are which constitute truth.
Even if the number of questions that constitute truth could be known, the number cannot be communicated.
Somehow the above gobbledygook is meant to clarify things. To my mind the only thing that it adds clarity to is the fact that Neil Obstat has no idea what he is talking about. Perhaps it is only fair that, since Neil has given us his understanding of the supposedly ambiguous, oxymoronic statement, and what follows from it, then I should give my understanding and let the jury decide.
If I say men are mortal and you say men are not mortal, I may accuse you of not knowing the truth, but perhaps we are meaning different things by the word “mortal.” If I mean by “mortal” the separation of the soul from the body resulting in a corpse that will eventually wind up dust but you mean by “mortal” that nothing of man will continue after death, even his soul i.e. complete “death” of body and soul, we might quibble back and forth but in fact we probably agree. What you are attempting to affirm is that something of man is immortal, namely his soul. You are not denying earthly death. The truth is not so much concerned with the words that we use to signify the ideas or thoughts that we have about reality but with the thoughts themselves. Do my thoughts correspond with reality? That is the question. In the above case our thoughts agree even though we are taking the word “mortal” in a different sense. We could quibble about what the word “mortal” should mean, but, with regards the truth of the question at issue (the state of man after this life) this is very secondary. We can use different words (vocal sounds) and yet mean the same thing. On the other hand, we can also use the same words and mean very different things i.e. we have different notions or ideas which those same vocal sounds are expressing. In this case, again, the truth or falsity is concerned most of all with the ideas or thoughts about reality and secondarily with the words which we use to express these thoughts.
The definition of truth is the correspondence (adequatio) of the mind to reality. If my thoughts about reality do in fact correspond to reality then I have the truth. If not, then my mind is false. Truth and falsity are in the mind, says St.Thomas, but the truth and falsity in the mind is measured by reality (we are not relativists because we say that truth is in the mind). The words (vocal sounds) that I use to express these thoughts which either are or are not in correspondence with reality are secondary (This is precisely why you can learn a second language—different words can mean the same thing).
Now Niel, you agreed to the fact that truth is the correspondence of the mind with reality. It is because of the fact that truth is the correspondence of the mind to reality that it is precisely the thoughts of our mind which truth is first of all concerned with while the vocal sounds (words) we use to convey these thoughts to others are secondary. You can have all the right words, but not the right thoughts behind them and thus be in error.
Fr. Themann uses this obvious truth in the following context: He points out that sedevacantists use the term “Concilliar Church” and the SSPX also uses the term. He further points out that just because we are using the same term it does not mean that we mean the same thing. He says that if we are to make a proper judgment about the truth of the situation in the society and the Church at present, we need to get at the ideas or thoughts behind these words such as “Conciliar Church” What do we mean by them? What do the sedevacantists mean by them? – “Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which they stand.”
If one wants to disagree with Fr. Theman’s application of these clear and obvious principles that is one thing, but to pretend that they are somehow modernist or non-Thomistic, etc is just absurd.
Some odds and ends:
You are trying my patience with your feigned proficiency with philosophy when you immediately demonstrate utter ignorance of the most basic distinctions in logic. Have you, Todd Kon-kel, ever studied logic at all?
You will forgive me, I hope, for failing to see exactly which basic logical distinctions I have overlooked or never learned. I do see that it does seem to be trying your patience but perhaps if you would point out these failures and maybe even give a bit of evidence from what I have said then we would be in a better position to examine them. Once again, merely pounding your chest and declaring something is not very convincing—not to me at least.
Yes, I have studied a bit of logic and I teach Aristotelian logic every year; I think that I have at least some of the basics down. I know, I know…it is no wonder that the whole world and even most Traditional Catholics are now modernists when you have people like me teaching philosophy to our college students. P.S. I bet you would not get better than a C- on my logic final exam (no, it is not that difficult of a test).
St. Thomas does not approach topics with qualifying statements like "A is not firstly a question of B but of the ideas for which the B stands." But +F does this all the time, like once a week or more.
Is this supposed to be some sort of an argument? Just out of curiosity…could you give me three or four of these weekly statements of Bishop Fellay? Actually, never mind, let’s try to keep on topic.
St. Thomas does not use the idiom "It's not a question of X but of Z." But that's one of +F's favorite muses.
So if St. Thomas were to say something like “Prudence is not a question of ends but of means” or something to that effect, would that count as “using this idiom”? I am sure I could give at least 10-20 examples from St. Thomas which would fit neatly into your above equation. If I were to say “It is not a question of whether I should buy my wife a birthday gift but what I should get her” would I stand condemned in your eyes for using false modernist “idioms?” You pick the most interesting windmills to tilt at.
I hope I don't have to inform you of a certain person who was known not as "The Idea" but as "The Word."
Does St. John in his first chapter say, "In the beginning was the Idea, and the Idea was with God and the Idea was God?"
Funny that you mention it… If you read St. Thomas’ commentary on John 1 or look at his De Veritate q.4 as well as other places, St. Thomas will distinguish the interior word (our interior ideas and judgments) from the exterior word which is secondary and gives expression to the interior word or idea. It is in light of this distinction that he will explain “The Word.”
Todd
P.S. I hope that I am using the quote feature correctly. If not I will try again.
-
I don't know everything, but maybe Fr. Themann was simply first addressing the aspect of truth of doctrinal formulations, which would include the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium as well as what Catholic theologians have said. I don't know, but I know what I say may sound like a nuance in relation to what was said by someone earlier in the thread. I do understand the concern about nuances though. "Splitting hairs" in this Church crisis needs to be done in understanding it, but we should not go too far in doing so to the point where we lose sight of conforming ourselves to the reality of the situation, i.e. the truth of the matter. I would like to read more on this topic and understand it better. I find it fascinating.
-
.
Todd Kon-kel, you are a pitiful sight.
Have you ever thought about quoting directly instead of changing the words to suit your straw-man cheap shots? Your lowbrow tactics are a gross failure, and I'm not afraid to tell you so. Maybe you're not accustomed to being caught red-handed with a big fat lie on your lips.
You misquote me and then proceed to argue against something I never said? Have you ever taken rhetoric or debate? If so, you were no doubt at the bottom of the class.
And don't accuse me of "cheap shots" because what I have said here is the plain truth. You have lied and you have proceeded to build on the lie. This is inexcusable and I will not tolerate your deception.
Neil formulates his objection to the statement that “Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which they stand” as follows:
Why do I think there is a problem, indeed?!
Let me count the ways.....
To be more accurate, it was rather like this:
"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand"(?)
Why do I think there is a problem, indeed?!
Let me count the ways.....
... but that's a side issue ... my primary concern is your untruthfulness..................
Ostensibly, one might say, "Truth is not a question of words," and leave it at that, but doing so, one would be saying practically nothing. Curiously, one might equally say, "Truth is a question of words," since the quoted proposition is entirely AMBIGUOUS as to what is and/or is not truth. It equally says that truth is not a question, and as well, it says that truth is not FIRSTLY a question (implying that it is perhaps secondarily a question, and that when we are only concerned with what truth is "firstly," we would be entirely UNconcerned with it's being as a question, therefore, for our purposes right now, truth is NOT a question). Maybe you, Todd Kon-kel, are unfamiliar with what "ambiguity" means. Let me explain it to you. When one proposition can legitimately be interpreted to mean two equally opposite things, the proposition is, per se, unintelligible, meaning that, it has no meaning. If you are a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche, you could run away with that conclusion saying that none of this has any meaning, because it is "just words." But we are not here, hopefully, to entertain the nonsense of such willfully obstinate haters of everything good, true and beautiful, are we? I'm not, but I don't know about you.
He says that the statements below follow from holding that truth is firstly about ideas rather than words:
The kindest thing I can say about that is, you are telling a flat-out lie.
I said no such thing.
What I said was (and it's what you most tellingly forgot to include -- why? -because it's inconvenient for your straw-man, that's why!) as follows:
The first and pre-eminent direct implication of this proposition is the following proposition:
"Truth is firstly a question of the ideas for which words stand."
NOT
"Truth is firstly about ideas rather than words."
A. You will notice (perhaps not Todd Kon-kel, but some other reader) that I am directly quoting the source (that is an accurate simplification of the original, "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand," which I carefully explained already), not making up my own words like "truth is firstly about ideas rather than words," because nobody but Todd Kon-kel is saying that.
B. Todd Kon-kel has not bothered to question my appropriate simplification of the original statement because he knows (I would expect) that he cannot raise any reasonable doubts upon it, since I have already taken the reader through a step-by-step logical development.
C. I suppose I should give credit where credit is due, since he does not dare to argue against that which is a losing case for him to pursue. But too bad he isn't so reasonable on the whole topic, alas, pride precedes a great fall.
D. Todd Kon-kel dreams up those words ("truth is firstly about ideas rather than words") because it would have been what he would have liked Fr. Themann to have said in his R.C.R. summary. But there is a problem with that.
F. Fr. Themann did not use those words, and if he had, I would not have had all this consequential follow-up with it, and I would not have been saying from the start that what he DID say was highly problematic.
G. Anyone who does not see the fallout from this poor choice of words (Truth is firstly a question of the ideas for which words stand -- a most reasonable simplification of the direct quote, as I already explained -- "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand"), has either never studied philosophy, or else was a very poor student. Todd Kon-kel could be either one of those but I suspect he's among the latter.
Taken in two installments, the first part of which is:
"Truth is firstly a question." -- That is BTW, a complete sentence, and it is a proposition. [/color]
Truth is a question.
MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, truth is a question.
More than anything truth can represent, truth is a question.
More than anything or anyone that has been called "Truth," truth is firstly a question.
Setting all of ontology aside as superfluous, truth is firstly a question.
If truth is firstly a question, then truth cannot be an answer.
Truth with all of its constituent elements, and all things known, are mutually exclusive.
Truth does not answer anything, but instead, truth raises doubts.
Truth is, in a word, unknowable.
Truth, could be, for example, non-existent.
Truth, for all we know, might be entirely imaginary.
Truth is found in the realm of the unknown.
Truth is not found anywhere, for it cannot be found.
Truth has no substance.
Truth is a chimera, a mirage, a pseudo-reality.
If God is truth then God does not exist.
There is no God but truth, but there is no truth, therefore God is not.
Truth is more than one question.
Truth is a series of questions which has an order of prominence, one to the next.
Truth can be arranged according to primary, secondary, &c., constituent questions.
The number of questions which constitute truth is not known.
The number of questions which constitute truth could be infinite.
It may be impossible to know how many questions there are which constitute truth.
Even if the number of questions that constitute truth could be known, the number cannot be communicated.
If you have followed what I have written above, you will certainly see that what follows now is all nonsense, because it is built on a fallacy, a straw-man, a false argument, a figment of Todd Kon-kel's overactive imagination.
He is writing gobbledygook, and of course, accuses me of same, which is typical of straw-man cheap-shots.
Somehow the above gobbledygook is meant to clarify things. To my mind the only thing that it adds clarity to is the fact that Neil Obstat has no idea what he is talking about. Perhaps it is only fair that, since Neil has given us his understanding of the supposedly ambiguous, oxymoronic statement, and what follows from it, then I should give my understanding and let the jury decide.
If I say men are mortal and you say men are not mortal, I may accuse you of not knowing the truth, but perhaps we are meaning different things by the word “mortal.” If I mean by “mortal” the separation of the soul from the body resulting in a corpse that will eventually wind up dust but you mean by “mortal” that nothing of man will continue after death, even his soul i.e. complete “death” of body and soul, we might quibble back and forth but in fact we probably agree. What you are attempting to affirm is that something of man is immortal, namely his soul. You are not denying earthly death. The truth is not so much concerned with the words that we use to signify the ideas or thoughts that we have about reality but with the thoughts themselves. Do my thoughts correspond with reality? That is the question. In the above case our thoughts agree even though we are taking the word “mortal” in a different sense. We could quibble about what the word “mortal” should mean, but, with regards the truth of the question at issue (the state of man after this life) this is very secondary. We can use different words (vocal sounds) and yet mean the same thing. On the other hand, we can also use the same words and mean very different things i.e. we have different notions or ideas which those same vocal sounds are expressing. In this case, again, the truth or falsity is concerned most of all with the ideas or thoughts about reality and secondarily with the words which we use to express these thoughts.
The definition of truth is the correspondence (adequatio) of the mind to reality. If my thoughts about reality do in fact correspond to reality then I have the truth. If not, then my mind is false. Truth and falsity are in the mind, says St.Thomas, but the truth and falsity in the mind is measured by reality (we are not relativists because we say that truth is in the mind). The words (vocal sounds) that I use to express these thoughts which either are or are not in correspondence with reality are secondary (This is precisely why you can learn a second language—different words can mean the same thing).
Now Niel, you agreed to the fact that truth is the correspondence of the mind with reality. It is because of the fact that truth is the correspondence of the mind to reality that it is precisely the thoughts of our mind which truth is first of all concerned with while the vocal sounds (words) we use to convey these thoughts to others are secondary. You can have all the right words, but not the right thoughts behind them and thus be in error.
Fr. Themann uses this obvious truth in the following context: He points out that sedevacantists use the term “Concilliar Church” and the SSPX also uses the term. He further points out that just because we are using the same term it does not mean that we mean the same thing. He says that if we are to make a proper judgment about the truth of the situation in the society and the Church at present, we need to get at the ideas or thoughts behind these words such as “Conciliar Church” What do we mean by them? What do the sedevacantists mean by them? – “Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which they stand.”
If one wants to disagree with Fr. Theman’s application of these clear and obvious principles that is one thing, but to pretend that they are somehow modernist or non-Thomistic, etc is just absurd.
Some odds and ends:
You are trying my patience with your feigned proficiency with philosophy when you immediately demonstrate utter ignorance of the most basic distinctions in logic. Have you, Todd Kon-kel, ever studied logic at all?
You will forgive me, I hope, for failing to see exactly which basic logical distinctions I have overlooked or never learned.
You might be forgiven, Todd Kon-kel, if you were repentant, but I have already explained it, and you proceed apace to ignore what I have said, so as to promote your nonsense Quixotic windmill-chasing.
I'd like to cut you some slack under the hope that it's an innocent mistake, but I can't do that because you have done it again and again after having been warned, and you accuse me of impropriety while you continue your false charade of nonsense.
I do hope you're having fun. Because you're wasting everyone's time.
Hint: You Won't Be Wasting Any More of My Time, I Can Assure You.
I do see that it does seem to be trying your patience but perhaps if you would point out these failures and maybe even give a bit of evidence from what I have said then we would be in a better position to examine them. Once again, merely pounding your chest and declaring something is not very convincing—not to me at least.
Yes, I have studied a bit of logic and I teach Aristotelian logic every year; I think that I have at least some of the basics down. I know, I know…it is no wonder that the whole world and even most Traditional Catholics are now modernists when you have people like me teaching philosophy to our college students. P.S. I bet you would not get better than a C- on my logic final exam (no, it is not that difficult of a test).
St. Thomas does not approach topics with qualifying statements like "A is not firstly a question of B but of the ideas for which the B stands." But +F does this all the time, like once a week or more.
Is this supposed to be some sort of an argument? Just out of curiosity…could you give me three or four of these weekly statements of Bishop Fellay? Actually, never mind, let’s try to keep on topic.
St. Thomas does not use the idiom "It's not a question of X but of Z." But that's one of +F's favorite muses.
So if St. Thomas were to say something like “Prudence is not a question of ends but of means” or something to that effect, would that count as “using this idiom”? I am sure I could give at least 10-20 examples from St. Thomas which would fit neatly into your above equation. If I were to say “It is not a question of whether I should buy my wife a birthday gift but what I should get her” would I stand condemned in your eyes for using false modernist “idioms?” You pick the most interesting windmills to tilt at.
I hope I don't have to inform you of a certain person who was known not as "The Idea" but as "The Word."
Does St. John in his first chapter say, "In the beginning was the Idea, and the Idea was with God and the Idea was God?"
Funny that you mention it… If you read St. Thomas’ commentary on John 1 or look at his De Veritate q.4 as well as other places, St. Thomas will distinguish the interior word (our interior ideas and judgments) from the exterior word which is secondary and gives expression to the interior word or idea. It is in light of this distinction that he will explain “The Word.”
Todd
P.S. I hope that I am using the quote feature correctly. If not I will try again.
Anyone who would like to see the formatting of the original post, just go back a few posts and see it there. Todd Kon-kel is even less adept at using the quote tools than he is with first level logic and rhetoric.
Todd Kon-kel, you probably should go focus on some other forum where your nonsense will be welcomed with open arms, like at EWTN or Catholic Answers. That's about your speed.
Incidentally, when I asked previously if you were ready for part two, my offer is hereby rescinded. There won't be any part two because you have worn out your welcome, Todd Kon-kel.
Goodbye.
.
-
I don't know everything, but maybe Fr. Themann was simply first addressing the aspect of truth of doctrinal formulations, which would include the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium as well as what Catholic theologians have said.
I'll grant that it's benevolent of you to cut Fr. Themann some slack, however, it's not a wise move, because he has already shown that what he is all about is setting up a false foundation, upon which he builds a meticulously deliberate false structure on top of it. This is possible to do with theory and rhetoric. And it also can get into bad theology.
There are no credible theologians who have said that, "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
There are so many things wrong with that sentence that it is most difficult to list them all. I started to do so in the previous post in answer to the manifest bad will of Todd Kon-kel, who just won't listen to simple logic, but only scratched the surface. Hopefully I gave a widely variable enough set of examples such that readers like you can see the implications and consequent errors that result from a bad start.
I don't know, but I know what I say may sound like a nuance in relation to what was said by someone earlier in the thread. I do understand the concern about nuances though. "Splitting hairs" in this Church crisis needs to be done in understanding it, but we should not go too far in doing so to the point where we lose sight of conforming ourselves to the reality of the situation, i.e. the truth of the matter. I would like to read more on this topic and understand it better. I find it fascinating.
The first step to wisdom is a love of the truth.
.
-
That's Thomistic philosophy. The mind is said to be in possession of the truth when its concept of the world external to it corresponds fully to the reality of that external world.
Example:
1. I see a red car parked outside on the driveway.
2. There really is a red car parked outside on the driveway (reality).
3. I conclude that there is a red car parked outside on the driveway (truth).
In short, "truth" happens when mind meets "reality."
Of course modern philosophy came along to usurp the honored place of this most accurate and commonsensical system of thought, essentially driving a wedge between external reality (if even acknowledged) and the mind's ability to really know it--a movement over the ages to try to do away with the Church's rightful claim to absolute truth, no less!
Modern analytic/linguistic philosophy is even worse (junk I had to study and write theses on in college and grad school), treating questions of truth and reality as "false questions" that the field of philosophy should not even be dealing with.
Correct answer.
I studied Philosophy at the SSPX seminary, so I'm somewhat qualified to chime in.
JPaul, I think you're way off. I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
I understand your motivation though -- you think the SSPX is compromised so you're going to take everything they say in the worst possible way.
Do you really think the SSPX can't spout Thomism anymore (even if it's just to look good for the Trad crowds), or do you think it will never be correct about anything? Sheesh, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Give them some credit.
And no, they're not that modernist yet. That might come in the future, but if you go around telling people the SSPX is modernist, you're just going to make yourself look foolish. They're cozying up to Modernist Rome, yes. They're trying to excuse the inexcusable (Vatican II, Pope Francis, etc.), yes. That tends to warp one's brain and one's grasp of the truth. But let's not confuse an eventuality or logical outcome with the present reality.
The professor that taught you Thomism is still a professor at the Seminary right? And he also taught to the American or English speaking resistance priest also.
Thanks for taking up for the SSPX. Sometimes the nonsense that is babbled here is unbearable regarding the slander campaign the "resistance" laity have undertaken.
-
.
Recall the OP and the question asked, because the following two posts were in answer to this very reasonable query:
"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
Can anyone explain what this means?
While I do not accuse these two members of deliberate error, there is a serious problem with the answers provided in these two posts:
That's Thomistic philosophy. The mind is said to be in possession of the truth when its concept of the world external to it corresponds fully to the reality of that external world.
Example:
1. I see a red car parked outside on the driveway.
2. There really is a red car parked outside on the driveway (reality).
3. I conclude that there is a red car parked outside on the driveway (truth).
In short, "truth" happens when mind meets "reality."
Of course modern philosophy came along to usurp the honored place of this most accurate and commonsensical system of thought, essentially driving a wedge between external reality (if even acknowledged) and the mind's ability to really know it--a movement over the ages to try to do away with the Church's rightful claim to absolute truth, no less!
Modern analytic/linguistic philosophy is even worse (junk I had to study and write theses on in college and grad school), treating questions of truth and reality as "false questions" that the field of philosophy should not even be dealing with.
Only in regards to the first proposition is this the case, namely, "Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality." All of what Skunkwurxsspx wrote above applies to that proposition entirely and only. It however does NOT apply to the second proposition.
Therefore it is the "correct answer" ONLY in regards to proposition #1.
Correct answer.
I studied Philosophy at the SSPX seminary, so I'm somewhat qualified to chime in.
If you think about it, Matthew, I'm sure you will recognize that you were responding only to the first of two propositions, that is, the one that is in the title of this thread, proposition #1.
If you consider only the second proposition, without any concern for proposition #1, above, as follows: "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand," you will recognize that you had overlooked that #2 entirely when you made your prior assessment, and saying, "Correct answer," in reply to Skunkwurxsspx, you had been thinking only of #1, not of #2, SPECIFICALLY.
This is not an unusual phenomenon. Philosophy can be tedious, and when confronted with such a combination of a TRUE statement, followed by a nearly incomprehensible statement, one may likely overlook the latter and cling to the former, due to the clarity and positive "vibes" of the former, and likewise due to the ambiguity and confusion effected by the latter.
This is a good example of why FEELINGS should be removed from logical argument, because paying attention to how you FEEL about a statement (or a pair of statements) can cause you to overlook the one that is problematic.
JPaul, I think you're way off. I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
It seems to me that we should not be hasty to criticize J.Paul, because he is a reliable and sensible member on CI, with lots of good posts, some of which are incomparable for insight and profundity. Furthermore, this seems likely to have caused him confusion trying to respond to proposition #2, and I would expect that he may have been attempting to reconcile #1 with #2, which is objectively impossible. Since he was thus attempting to do the impossible, it should be no surprise that what he wrote isn't intelligible. I agree with Matthew when he says: "I don't even understand what you're trying to say," J.Paul.
I understand your motivation though -- you think the SSPX is compromised so you're going to take everything they say in the worst possible way.
Do you really think the SSPX can't spout Thomism anymore (even if it's just to look good for the Trad crowds), or do you think it will never be correct about anything? Sheesh, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Give them some credit.
If proposition #2 was an attempt to "spout Thomism," it was a total failure, and I can prove it. The only reason it slipped by some readers is because it was prefaced with proposition #1, which is "Thomism" to the core. Better stated, it's philosophia perennis, because this term describes not a philosophy founded by St. Thomas Aquinas, but one he seriously helped to develop, with enormous good fruit in his wake.
And no, they're not that modernist yet. That might come in the future, but if you go around telling people the SSPX is modernist, you're just going to make yourself look foolish. They're cozying up to Modernist Rome, yes. They're trying to excuse the inexcusable (Vatican II, Pope Francis, etc.), yes. That tends to warp one's brain and one's grasp of the truth. But let's not confuse an eventuality or logical outcome with the present reality.
As much as I would like this to be true, and as much as I can completely understand why you would like to say this, Matthew, there is a shadow of doubt lurking in the dimly-lit corners. This second proposition is a snake pit of error disguised as benevolence. It is a world of shadowy confusion and unclear ambiguity, and I can prove it.
.
-
To Answer the OP's original question, You can blame George Berkeley and David Hume for the collapse of realism in philosophy. Modern philosophy is still trying to reconcile their ideas without collapsing into total solipsism. Their philosophies of Idealism which asserted that the mind itself was the certain of reality overthrow the Aristotelian-Thomists which asserted that although "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses", the intellect is not where reality originates, but how we can learn of it.
This diagram provides a good example of what I'm trying to illustrate:
(http://www.gicas.net/tower/diagram.jpg)
-
.
These two propositions are a marvelous example of Modernism in action:
#1. Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality.
#2. Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.
Why are these two propositions a great example of Modernism?
When Pope St. Pius X defined and condemned Modernism 105 years ago in Pascendi domenici gregis, 1907, he said that the Modernist will say perfectly truthful things, with absolute conformity with Apostolic Tradition and the truth of God, on one page, and then when you turn the page, you will find the Modernist saying something else utterly false, in contradiction with God's truth and inimical to Apostolic Tradition.
That is exactly what you have here with Fr. Themann's two propositions, neither one of which is a direct quote of St. Thomas Aquinas. But one is traditional and the other is an enemy of tradition.
Proposition #1 is the product of the same philosophy to which St. Thomas adhered and spent his life developing, but proposition #2 is typical of the kind of nonsense and ambiguous duplicitous double-speak that you hear coming from the Menzingen-denizens ever since the untimely demise of the saintly founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. And this is exactly the way they slip these meddlesome corruptions in without good members noticing.
Here, our own Matthew and Skunkwurkzsspx did not notice. Kyrie Eleison.
They didn't notice because proposition #1 is beautiful, good and true. And this overwhelming truth and appropriateness for today set them up to miss the folly and subversive error of proposition #2.
The April Fifteenth Declaration ("AFD," or "Doctrinal Declaration") is another example of such a thing. It is Modernism to the core, due to its wildly divergent content, with keywords that tug at the heartstrings of traditional sensus catholicus, followed by subtle and non-traditional words and phrases that have NO TRUCK with Tradition.
As Fr. Patrick Girouard so aptly observes, "The Doctrinal Declaration of April 15 of last year, drawn up by the Superior General (SG) of the Society of St Pius X as a basis for the Society’s reintegration into the mainstream Church, has emerged nearly one year later into public view. It was designed by the SG to please both the Conciliar Romans and Traditionalists (“It can be read with dark or rose-coloured glasses,” he said in public). It did please the Romans who declared that it represented an “advance” in their direction. It did not please Traditionalists who saw in it (what they knew of it) such ambiguity as to represent a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre’s stand for the Catholic Faith, to the point that they considered that the Romans need only have accepted it to destroy his Society."
In a later editorial (http://sacrificium.org/article/perception-25-june-2013), Fr. Girouard had this to say about the AFD and the Statement of the General Chapter of 2012 (with its notorious "6 Conditions"):
Later on, Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants, forming what is called the General Council, have presented to Rome a Doctrinal Declaration, dated April 15th 2012, which is a monument of the same kind of hypocrisy. It is a docuмent that tries, by means of subtlety in the choice of words and expressions, to be acceptable both to the Modernists and to Traditionalists. That is why Bishop Fellay himself said repeatedly that our acceptance of this text would depend on our state of mind while reading it (I refer to his expression: “pink or dark tinted glasses”). As far as we know, the General Council has not yet sent another official docuмent to Rome, to say that it revokes this Doctrinal Declaration, and it therefore still represents the official position of the Society on these questions, notwithstanding any declaration to the contrary done in sermons or conferences. Such utterances have indeed no official or juridical value whatsoever, and are only another proof that the leaders of the Society are being hypocritical, not only towards the mainstream “Catholics”, but also with their own faithful who are paying their bills.
Another striking example of hypocrisy is the Declaration of the 2012 General Chapter of the Society, and the six “conditions” to a practical agreement. The Superiors pretend to have recovered the unity in the Society, while, in practice, that so-called “unity” has been reached by the expulsion of any dissenting voice, including that of one of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. It is a unity based on fear and on lies. Those who know that the Society is doing wrong fear punishment, and those who think it is doing right have been deceived by the sophisms explained above. Moreover, to affirm that the six “conditions”, weak in themselves, could protect us is to refuse to see the reality in Rome, and to forget what happened to the nine Traditional Communities who tried this before. This is tantamount to voluntary intellectual blindness.
What we hope that everybody could realize, is that Bishop Fellay and his followers are doing the same mistake than clergymen did at Vatican II: They found their new strategy on a question of PERCEPTION. Vatican II has indeed been an attempt to improve the perception outsiders had of the Catholic Church. The failed experiment of the Conciliar Church should have prevented the Society leaders from falling into that same trap, but, since when do children learn from the experience of previous generations?
What can we do to help stop this non-sense? I think we have to get out of this system of hypocrisy and of that cycle of fear. We have to stand up for the truth, no matter the perception others may have of us, and no matter the punishments. What converted the Pagans in the first centuries of the Church was not Christians who tried to be well thought of. It was the constancy of those who were ready to give their lives to uphold their convictions. Therefore my dear friends, LET US RESIST OPENLY AND STRONGLY!
Abbé Patrick Girouard
Even so, there are some traditional Catholics around today who think that, had Rome accepted that AFD, it would have been a good thing for the Church, and that it was Freemasons in the Vatican who prevented Pope Benedict XVI from normalizing the SSPX by way of accepting that AFD! This is a consequence of the profound CONFUSION in our time that the devil has found possible to instigate in the Church.
The S.A.R.D. of Bishop Fellay is another example (Silver Anniversary Re-Declaration). It has key phrases that good Catholics like to hear because it is the voice of Holy Mother Church. Then the next thing you know, it has stuff like:
The texts of the Council contain the “cause of the grave errors” of Vatican II, where that one word, "cause" introduces a WORLD of logical difficulties that have no place in real Catholicism.
It says, “the reign of Christ is no longer the preoccupation of the ecclesiastical authorities” [and that] “the sovereignty of Christ ... is simply ignored, and even combated ...,” when in fact the Council does not "ignore" the Kingship and Sovereignty of Christ, it denies it.
It says, “The destruction of authority means that destruction of families ...” (Fr. Pfeiffer says) That is a huge...! That’s called the teaching of the Alta Vendita. The teaching of the Alta Vendita (a secret docuмent of the Masons in the ...1800s, and) it says, ‘We will raise obedience to the highest of virtues and we will use authority to destroy the Catholic Church. We know that Catholics are obedient, so we’re going to make obedience so big, that you can’t be Catholic unless you are so obedient, and then through obedience we will destroy the Church.’
It says, "Religious Liberty ... leads to ... God ... renounc[ing] His reign ..." Religious Liberty does not ‘lead to’ problems. It does not ‘lead to’ Christ renouncing His reign. Religious Liberty is a heresy. It does not lead to Christ renouncing His own Kingship. When was the last time you heard, that Jesus Christ was going to renounce His Kingship?
.
.
.
Maybe all this focus on such subtleties and deceptive details is too much trouble for some.
Maybe these nuances of subversion are too tiresome for some.
Maybe it's just too fatiguing and it would be more comfortable to relax and "Take It Easy."
Maybe some Catholics have become jaded, and they're tired of the fight.
That's what the devil wants to happen.. because the devil never sleeps. His is an eternal battle, and it will be over for some when they die, and it will be over for everyone when the end of the world comes, but for the devil it will go on forever and ever in eternity, in his kingdom of hell. And there, the tired, jaded, worn out soldiers who "threw in the towel" will face the consequences of having given up the fight.
The SSPX used to fight in the objective ground. Now it fights in the subjective.
Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer
.
-
.
Our Lord said, he who perseveres to the end shall be saved.
The corollary to this is, he who throws in the towel shall be damned.
.
-
.
To Answer the OP's original question, You can blame George Berkeley and David Hume for the collapse of realism in philosophy.
Readers might like to know that Berkley College in Oakland California was named after George Berkeley -- interestingly, they didn't spell his name correctly. Sounds like a great start for an institution of "higher learning," no?
David Hume, however, doesn't seem to have any namesake, fortunately! Nor does Fichte or "God is dead" Nietzsche, likewise!
Modern philosophy is still trying to reconcile their ideas without collapsing into total solipsism.
Readers might not be familiar with what is meant by "solipsism." You can search for Solipsist and solipsism and be prepared for a headache in the process.
In the following, might I presume you mean to say, San Amaro, that these Idealism philosophies were of Berkeley and Hume, which asserted that the mind itself was the certainty of reality, thus claimed to overthrow ... etc?
Their philosophies of Idealism which asserted that the mind itself was the certain [sic] of reality overthrow the Aristotelian-Thomists which asserted that although "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses", the intellect is not where reality originates, but how we can learn of it.
More explicitly, you might mean to say, that these Idealism philosophies of Berkeley and Hume, which asserted that the mind itself was the certainty of reality, thus claimed to overthrow the Aristotelian-Thomists, who had asserted RATHER that, "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses," AND THAT the intellect is not where reality originates, but that it is by way of our faculty of intellect that we can learn of objective reality. Therefore, it is our conformity of our mind to reality that is truth.
To demonstrate how the enemies of God's revelation and truth have tried to do battle with this longstanding philosophia perennis, in answer to the above-stated principle that it is by way of our faculty of intellection that we can learn of objective reality, their response has been the following:
The modern enemies of truth simply say that there is no such thing as a "faculty."
These modern philosophers, like Berkeley and Hume (among many others, such as Fichte, Nietzsche, Locke, Comte, Bergstrom, Whitehead, Kant, Marx, etc.), with whom such anti-luminaries as Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin (the "demigods Charlie") as well as Einstein, Hubble, Sagan and Hawking cozy up with and embrace, do so in their unholy alliance to defy the revelation of God ACROSS THE BOARD in modern academia.
.
-
.
Truth is not a question.
.
-
.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Truth-is-not-a-question
.
-
Lost Transcript Found of Discussion between Private Neil, his Sergeant, and their Commanding Officer
On: “Winning the battle is firstly a question.”
Commanding Officer: What is it now Private Neil?
Private Neil: Officer, You of all people know how much I hate to usurp –although I hate to use the word usurp, since this is really a communist word which everyone, most of all you, dear officer knows—…Anyhow, as I was saying, I hate to usurp another’s authority but Sergeant Pepper here is questioning whether or not we can win tomorrow’s battle and even whether we should attack at all and many more things as well. I repeat his exact words, he said, “Winning the battle is a question.” And we all know that this also implies…[droning gobldleygook which nobody understands ]…
Commanding Officer: Silence Neil!! Sergeant Pepper, could you please explain what is going on here.
Sergeant Pepper: Officer, I was telling the men that, “Winning the battle is firstly a question of courage and discipline and not merely of strength of arms.” I was attempting to encourage the men but Private Neil immediately rose up and began screaming that I do not believe the cause, that I think that winning the battle is questionable and much more which was more or less incoherent.
Private Neil went on to compose a list of other things which are necessarily implied when I said that winning the battle was firstly a question of courage and discipline.
Let’s see, here it is.
“MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, winning the battle is a question. “
“More than anything winning the battle can represent, winning the battle is a question.”
“Setting all of military thought aside as superfluous, winning the battle is firstly a question.”
There is much more, but I think that you get the point Commander.
Commanding Officer: My dear private Neil…A private you are, and a private you will remain.
-
.
To Answer the OP's original question, You can blame George Berkeley and David Hume for the collapse of realism in philosophy.
Readers might like to know that Berkley College in Oakland California was named after George Berkeley -- interestingly, they didn't spell his name correctly. Sounds like a great start for an institution of "higher learning," no?
David Hume, however, doesn't seem to have any namesake, fortunately! Nor does Fichte or "God is dead" Nietzsche, likewise!
Modern philosophy is still trying to reconcile their ideas without collapsing into total solipsism.
Readers might not be familiar with what is meant by "solipsism." You can search for Solipsist and solipsism and be prepared for a headache in the process.
In the following, might I presume you mean to say, San Amaro, that these Idealism philosophies were of Berkeley and Hume, which asserted that the mind itself was the certainty of reality, thus claimed to overthrow ... etc?
Yeah, Berkeley and Hume rejected St. Thomas's common sense approach to how we acquire knowledge and built up a materialist anti-god theory which modern "philosophy" has accepted ever since.
Their philosophies of Idealism which asserted that the mind itself was the certain [sic] of reality overthrow the Aristotelian-Thomists which asserted that although "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses", the intellect is not where reality originates, but how we can learn of it.
More explicitly, you might mean to say, that these Idealist philosophies of Berkeley and Hume, which asserted that the mind itself was the certainty of reality, thus claimed to overthrow the Aristotelian-Thomists, who had asserted RATHER that, "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses," AND THAT the intellect is not where reality originates, but that it is by way of our faculty of intellect that we can learn of objective reality. Therefore, it is our conformity of our mind to reality that is truth.
To demonstrate how the enemies of God's revelation and truth have tried to do battle with this longstanding philosophia perennis, in answer to the above-stated principle that it is by way of our faculty of intellection that we can learn of objective reality, their response has been the following:
The modern enemies of truth simply say that there is no such thing as a "faculty."
These modern philosophers, like Berkeley and Hume (among many others, such as Fichte, Nietzsche, Locke, Comte, Bergstrom, Whitehead, Kant, Marx, etc.), with whom such anti-luminaries as Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin (the "demigods Charlie") as well as Einstein, Hubble, Sagan and Hawking cozy up with and embrace, do so in their unholy alliance to defy the revelation of God ACROSS THE BOARD in modern academia.
:applause: You did a much better of explaining what's wrong with these modern philosopher's than I could. When one guts proper metaphysics and epistemology, everything that will result of it will be disordered. That's how terrible things such as abortion and sodomite "marriage" can be enacted - because one loses God in these modernist philosophies.
.
-
.
To Answer the OP's original question, You can blame George Berkeley and David Hume for the collapse of realism in philosophy.
Readers might like to know that Berkley College in Oakland California was named after George Berkeley -- interestingly, they didn't spell his name correctly. Sounds like a great start for an institution of "higher learning," no?
David Hume, however, doesn't seem to have any namesake, fortunately! Nor does Fichte or "God is dead" Nietzsche, likewise!
Modern philosophy is still trying to reconcile their ideas without collapsing into total solipsism.
Readers might not be familiar with what is meant by "solipsism." You can search for Solipsist and solipsism and be prepared for a headache in the process.
In the following, might I presume you mean to say, San Amaro, that these Idealism philosophies were of Berkeley and Hume, which asserted that the mind itself was the certainty of reality, thus claimed to overthrow ... etc?
Yeah, Berkeley and Hume rejected St. Thomas's common sense approach to how we acquire knowledge and built up a materialist anti-god theory which modern "philosophy" has accepted ever since.
Their philosophies of Idealism which asserted that the mind itself was the certain [sic] of reality overthrow the Aristotelian-Thomists which asserted that although "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses", the intellect is not where reality originates, but how we can learn of it.
More explicitly, you might mean to say, that these Idealist philosophies of Berkeley and Hume, which asserted that the mind itself was the certainty of reality, thus claimed to overthrow the Aristotelian-Thomists, who had asserted RATHER that, "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses," AND THAT the intellect is not where reality originates, but that it is by way of our faculty of intellect that we can learn of objective reality. Therefore, it is our conformity of our mind to reality that is truth.
To demonstrate how the enemies of God's revelation and truth have tried to do battle with this longstanding philosophia perennis, in answer to the above-stated principle that it is by way of our faculty of intellection that we can learn of objective reality, their response has been the following:
The modern enemies of truth simply say that there is no such thing as a "faculty."
These modern philosophers, like Berkeley and Hume (among many others, such as Fichte, Nietzsche, Locke, Comte, Bergstrom, Whitehead, Kant, Marx, etc.), with whom such anti-luminaries as Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin (the "demigods Charlie") as well as Einstein, Hubble, Sagan and Hawking cozy up with and embrace, do so in their unholy alliance to defy the revelation of God ACROSS THE BOARD in modern academia.
:applause: You did a much better [job] of explaining what's wrong with these modern philosopher's than I could. When one guts proper metaphysics and epistemology, everything that will result of it will be disordered. That's how terrible things such as abortion and sodomite "marriage" can be enacted - because one loses God in these modernist philosophies.
.
Thank you. I wasn't trying to show you up or anything. Your intention was clear to me but I thought that others might not so easily see what you were trying to say.
I am very pleased to see you have a proper sense about all of this. You posts give me a lot of hope and enthusiasm. Please do not be afraid to say what you are impelled to say even if it doesn't come out just right, in English!
You said,
When one guts proper metaphysics and epistemology, everything that will result of it will be disordered. That's how terrible things such as abortion and sodomite "marriage" can be enacted - because one loses God in these modernist philosophies.
How true! Here we have SSPX priests ostensibly being good priests, trying to lead the faithful, but in fact they are gutting proper metaphysics and epistemology! I couldn't have said it better!
It is exactly that, proper metaphysics and epistemology that is under attack with Modernism. And nonsense sentences like "truth is a question" do serious damage to metaphysics and epistemology. If it were some yokel from Muskogee who would care? But here is a prominent SSPX priest, one who is a PROFESSOR in Winona -- where we send our sons for seminary! -- and he's dishing out the goods. Since when is TRUTH a QUESTION? Is that new for 2014 or what?
I have posted things like that before and oh, boy, the outrage. Without studying philosophy (properly!) it is impossible to see how such simple statements like "truth is a question" can be the starting point to end up with abortion and Sodomite "marriage."
One member had the temerity to accuse me of rash judgment saying, Oh yeah, first it's an SSPX priest making a one-word mistake and the next thing you know it's pederasty in the rectory!
Sodomites do not give up. Sodomite activism is thriving today.
In previous ages, we have had entire civilizations wiped out by Sodomites and Sodomy becoming acceptable in general culture. Sodom and Gomorrah is one example. Also there is Greece and Rome. They all met their demise because of Sodomy becoming officially acceptable. And it's happening RIGHT NOW in America.
Who is the victim with Sodomy? It is one of the 4 sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, as you'll find in all the old catechisms (but it's nowhere to be found in the so-called CCC).
The other 3 are oppression of the poor (the poor are the victims, which includes families), willful murder of the innocent (the murdered innocent are the victims, and their families), and depriving a laborer his just wages (again, the laborer and his family are the victims). But who is the victim with Sodomy?
The answer is found in the other 3 sins: by extension, the families of all, that is, society at large is the victim. Nobody in America is free anymore. This was a nation built on "freedom" and now we have become slaves to Sodomite activists who oppress the poor in spirit, murder the innocent unborn children, and deprive everyone from our grace in justice from God because of their sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.
The sin of Sodom is so repulsive, spiritually, that EVEN THE DEVIL recoils in disgust. That's pretty bad, when it's too depraved even for the devil to have anything to do with it. It is the essence of corruption, and as St. Paul says in Romans i. 32, not only them that DO it, but those who consent to them that do it, are worthy of death. In the early 19th century, a British sailor caught in Sodomy was strung up from the yard-arm, and hanged until dead, and his body was cast out to sea without any burial service -- as if it were so much trash.
We're losing our freedom because of all 4 sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, but if you have no sense for philosophy, you'll never see that happening.
It will happen anyway, even if you don't see it.
Words have meaning, and lack of faith has consequences, and the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance shall be avenged. God said, vengeance is Mine.
Woe to America.
.
-
.
Sodomites don't give up.
They won't rest until they make it ILLEGAL for anyone to speak out against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity or its practice.
They won't rest until they have a LEGAL RIGHT to demand *n*l intercourse with those whom they desire.
They will not give up until their perversion becomes the LAW OF THE LAND.
They want EVERYONE to be ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
They want it to be illegal for anyone to be opposed to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and they want it to be punishable by DEATH. That's "payback time."
Remember we've already seen it with racism, and now it's happening with the non-discrimination and "hate laws."
.
-
Dear Private Neil,
What does any of this talk of sodomites have to do with our topic of "Truth is firstly a question of ideas rather than the words which express them?"
You seem to be attempting to bury our discussion.
Todd
-
Dear Private Neil,
What does any of this talk of sodomites have to do with our topic of "Truth is firstly a question of ideas rather than the words which express them?"
You seem to be attempting to bury our discussion.
Todd
Perhaps he is concerned about those who appear to propose a truth, and by a trick of words attempt to slip error through the back door.
Doctrinal buggery.
-
Not sure if anyone posted this, but in the first part of his lecture, Bishop Pivarunas teaches about truth: (about 3 minutes in)
http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/MiscArchives/BpPiv_SatanWillDeceiveIfPossibleEvenTheElectPart1_FatimaConference2013.mp3
-
Not sure if anyone posted this, but in the first part of his lecture, Bishop Pivarunas teaches about truth: (about 3 minutes in)
http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/MiscArchives/BpPiv_SatanWillDeceiveIfPossibleEvenTheElectPart1_FatimaConference2013.mp3
Nobody posted that link, SenzaDubbio, and I'd like to be the first to thank you for the link. Bishop Pivarunas gives great sermons, and this is a conference recording. He begins on truth at minute 2:30, saying that there are three kinds of truth: logical truth, ontological truth and moral truth; plus the key word for truth is CONFORMITY.
This sounds like it will be great.
.
-
.
Then the next thing you know, it has stuff like:
The texts of the Council contain the “cause of the grave errors” of Vatican II, where that one word, "cause" introduces a WORLD of logical difficulties that have no place in real Catholicism.
It’s interesting you make reference to this.
Could it be that in referencing the “texts of the Council” as the cause of the errors, they are leaving room for the “spirit of the Council” as still being right.
Bringing us to the statement “Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand”.
Could his statements be laying the groundwork to accept the idea that there is Truth in the Council, we just got it wrong because we used the wrong words?
Bringing us to “hermeneutic of contnuity”, that if we contemplated and deliberated and nuanced “words” enough, we could get them to mean something that IS connected to THE TRUTH, therefore the Council “in spirit” is still right, thus it has to be accepted.
Is this where the SSPX is leading us to with this kind of language?
-
Not sure if anyone posted this, but in the first part of his lecture, Bishop Pivarunas teaches about truth: (about 3 minutes in)
http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/MiscArchives/BpPiv_SatanWillDeceiveIfPossibleEvenTheElectPart1_FatimaConference2013.mp3
Nobody posted that link, SenzaDubbio, and I'd like to be the first to thank you for the link. Bishop Pivarunas gives great sermons, and this is a conference recording. He begins on truth at minute 2:30, saying that there are three kinds of truth: logical truth, ontological truth and moral truth; plus the key word for truth is CONFORMITY.
This sounds like it will be great.
.
Bishop Pivarunas mentions our topic at several points in the first half of this 2-1/2-hour conference. But the second half (after 1:16:20) is missing so I have no idea what was covered there. Perhaps there is some corrpution of the audio file.
He mentions briefly how WORDS are important, and that along with JPII, CDF head Ratzinger defended the "validity" of the Assyrian church of the East liturgy which has no words of consecration. "If you don't have any consecration you don't have any mass." Then Ratzinger said that people are getting all hung up on words, but it's not the words, it's the community!
This reminded me of our topic here, where Fr. Themann scandalously says, "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
Now, I don't care who you are, or whether you claim to teach "philosophy" at "St. Mary's College" (even though your name is only found as a donor to an activist group in Kansas) or whether you run an Internet forum or whether you are a priest of the SSPX; if you are wont to defend this indefensible scandal of Fr. Themann, then you are also wont to defend the Assyrian church of the East and their "valid" liturgy (according to soon-to-be-so-called Newcanonized JPII and his sidekick Ratzinger, which see), and you are likewise wont to defend the docuмents of Vat.II, including but not limited to Dignitatis Humanae, which taught, scandalously, that everyone has a right to practice (in public?) their religion according to their conscience, and that all the (false) religions of the world have the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (in denial of Ps. xcv. 5: "All the gods of the gentiles are devils"), and Sacrorum Antistitum, Pascendi, and the Syllabus of errors and Mortalium animos have no truck with your particular preference for what you believe.
Either words have meaning or they don't.
In Vat.II all of Catholic Tradition was tossed out the window, and, as Bishop Pivarunas says in minute 50 or so, "The docuмents of Vat.II were so cleverly written that they are satanic."
Therefore, I tell you, what Fr. Themann has written here is satanic, because this one sentence is so cleverly written it cannot be just a mistake. It is DELIBERATELY placed immediately after a most august truth of Catholic Tradition and Church philosophy (Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality) and introduces utter ambiguity with "...is not firstly a question of... but of..." that it cannot be just coincidental, any more than the fulfillment of OT prophesy in the life of Our Lord could be an offhand chance occurrence, any more that the beginning of life on planet earth could have been by mere chance (so-called evolution).
What Fr. Themann has in that one sentence in seed form is the wreck and ruin of all religion (from Pascendi), because what he has there is rank Modernism.
.
-
.
HOLYSOULSACADEMY DOES IT AGAIN
Thanks to holysoulsacademy, this thread actually has a discussion going on:
.
Then the next thing you know, it has stuff like:
The texts of the Council contain the “cause of the grave errors” of Vatican II, where that one word, "cause" introduces a WORLD of logical difficulties that have no place in real Catholicism.
It’s interesting you make reference to this.
I hope you don't mind my saying so, but I don't think it's any more interesting than the fact that you have noticed it. Furthermore, your observations below are MOST HELPFUL to this discussion, for you bring a selection of appropriate references all to the fore, which are things that really ought to be front page news. But you won't find a publication anywhere on planet earth today, that agrees with that.
Could it be that in referencing the “texts of the Council” as the cause of the errors, they are leaving room for the “spirit of the Council” as still being right.
I have NO QUESTION but that you are in hot pursuit of their hidden agenda, holysoulsacademy. I have heard several great priests give sermons on this topic and you are the first one to make this most alarming connection. Thank you for this contribution to the discussion! The only thing I would add is the word "unclean":
Could it be that in referencing the “texts of the Council” as the cause of the errors, they are leaving room for the unclean spirit of Vat.II as still being right?
But your version is probably more widely acceptable, alas.
Bringing us to the statement, “Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand.”
Could his statements be laying the groundwork to accept the idea that there is Truth in the Council, we just got it wrong because we used the wrong words?
You are sitting smack on the brink of judging their intentions, but that's okay. Sitting on the brink is generally a pretty good point of perspective, because you get a really wide angle view of the scenery.
One thing's for sure: there isn't anything in the text itself that would prove otherwise. The damage control crew could try to defend it, saying that you're being too critical, or you're taking it out of context, or you have to understand the spirit of the words, "Truth is not firstly a question of words..." &c.
But they cannot prove that his statement is not laying the groundwork to accept the idea that there is Truth in the Council, and/or that we have just been getting it wrong because we have been using the wrong words. -- But of course, there is hope for us yet, we "poor people" (a direct quote from +Fellay) have still a chance to "see the light of reason" and to come around to the Menzingen-denizens' way of apostasy -- woops, I mean, WAY OF THINKING.
They cannot prove that, because there is nothing in the words themselves that would show that this accusation of their laying of this groundwork to be false.
I do hope Fr. Pfeiffer is reading this.
Bringing us to “hermeneutic of contnuity,” that if we contemplated and deliberated and nuanced “words” enough, we could get them to mean something that IS connected to THE TRUTH, therefore the Council “in spirit” is still right, thus it has to be accepted.
Is this where the SSPX is leading us to with this kind of language?
Has anyone told you today that you're beautiful, holysoulsacademy? Well, you are.
I have to say, my hat's off to you, holysoulsacademy, because this is a marvelous principle you have provided here.
The hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI is perhaps the SINGLE MOST SCANDALOUS Papal docuмent in the history of the Church. It is far worse than anything in the deplorable Vat.II docuмents. It is SO BAD because it proposes for universal acceptance the principle of insanity into the mind of the Church.
From time immemorial there has not been found, ONE sane thinker, who has said otherwise. The ancient Greeks (before the corruption that destroyed their culture) unanimously agreed that the principle of non-contradiction was at the foundation of all intelligent thought. For to say that something can BE as well as NOT BE at the same time leads inevitably and inexorably to utter folly and total nonsense, in a word, insanity.
What Vat.II proposed is the contradiction of truth. But it took until Benedict XVI's unholy ascendancy to the throne of Peter before this denial of everything good and true and beautiful about the Church would be proposed as somehow compatible with the very thing it was denying.
He himself is on record observing that Vat.II was the FRENCH REVOLUTION IN THE CHURCH, and it is a COUNTER-SYLLABUS (referring to its denial of the Syllabus of errors of the great Pope Pius IX).
Vat.II proposed the denial of the Faith. It proposed the utter destruction of God's divine revelation. And then here we have the so-called hermeneutic of continuity that by playing fast and loose with WORDS, we can make the NEGATION of truth agree with truth itself, IOW, the contradiction of the principle of non-contradiction.
Effectively, yes means no and no means yes.
But what did Our Lord teach us? "Let your speech be yea, yea : no, no : that you fall not under judgment" (Jas. v. 12).
.
-
"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand." ...WORDS are important, and that along with JPII, CDF head Ratzinger defended the "validity" of the Assyrian church of the East liturgy which has no words of consecration. "If you don't have any consecration you don't have any mass." Then Ratzinger said that people are getting all hung up on words, but it's not the words, it's the community!
Thanks Neil for this angle. Sacramental Theology uses particular wording (form) for validation (matter/form/intention).
As you know the 'form' of a valid Baptism uses the same words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Rather than using "I baptize thee by the grace of the Creator of the Universe and of the Triune God"), even though in both you could say that the ideas for which the words stand are essentially the same.
Similarly, the expression of words that are not the same, but 'in the ballpark' using altered phrasing (i.e. words of Consecration) was considered insufficient (pre-Vatican II). Or the idea of precision in wording in and of itself 'important.'
The questioning of different words used, has led to continued debate as to invalidity or doubt towards some of the Sacraments (in some circles). And it is this very struggle that would lend credence to 'words' in and of itself having weight.
-
.
Thank you for your reply, The Penny Catechism.
"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand." ...WORDS are important, and that along with JPII, CDF head Ratzinger defended the "validity" of the Assyrian church of the East liturgy which has no words of consecration. "If you don't have any consecration you don't have any mass." Then Ratzinger said that people are getting all hung up on words, but it's not the words, it's the community!
Thanks Neil for this angle. Sacramental Theology uses particular wording (form) for validation (matter/form/intention).
You're welcome.
As you know, the 'form' of a valid Baptism uses the same words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Rather than using "I baptize thee by the grace of the Creator of the Universe and of the Triune God"), even though in both you could say that the ideas for which the words stand are essentially the same.
While it is true that the ideas are generally speaking represented in the latter, in fact, the ideas are INSUFFICIENTLY represented. Let me explain.
The valid words for holy Baptism begin with "In the name." What does that mean? It means that this Baptism is being done IN something, not BY something. There is a world of difference between those two words, in and by. If you'd like to take your girlfriend out on a date to a movie theater, would you go in the theater or would you go by the theater? If you want to take out a car loan at the bank would you go in the bank or would you go by the bank? Does it make any difference? Do you get the date or do you get the loan by the theater or by the bank?
The words "the name" refer to the unity in substance of the Blessed Trinity, which is represented by the singular word, "God." The word "name" is also singular, for if it were 3 gods it would be "names."
Therefore, the first 3 words, "In the name," has a very profound meaning, NONE of which is conveyed by "by the grace," as above.
You might consider this item a bit "nuts" but in literal fact, the words in your latter form could mean "...by the grace of the Universe...," as follows: "I baptize thee by the grace of the Creator, and by the grace of the Universe, and by the grace of the Triune God." The only difference is the addition of ONE COMMA after the word "Creator." (I added "...and by the grace..." for emphasis.) This would imply additionally that there are three different graces, that is, unless someone has drawn up a doctrine of the unity of grace even if it is of the Creator, or of the Universe, or of the Triune God. And is the Universe also a "God?" -because it would seem that "the Creator" and "the Triune God" are a God. Do you see there are consequences to the meaning of words?
In one version of "the Bible" there is the word (letter) "a" added to the Gospel of St. John i. 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God." Do you see it? It is the penultimate word in the sentence. With that one word, the false religion that publishes (current tense) this version, preaches polytheism. An entire universe of bad religion and satanic perversion marches right in the front door because of one letter on one page of the whole book.
Either words have meaning or they don't.
Furthermore, the term, "the Creator of the Universe" is incomplete. Satanists would say you're talking about their god, to whom the Freemasons refer as "the Great Architect of the universe." I don't know about you, but every architect I have ever worked with (and there have been several) has always considered himself to be the creator of the projects he designs, for nobody else is thought to be any more than a means to the end of his own glory.
And finally, the phrase "and of the Triune God" might seem quaint, but it is ambiguous, while there is nothing ambiguous about "of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," for these three names are shown to be one in substance with each other by dint of the singular number of "name" which precedes it. "Triune God" does not specifically convey the unity of substance, even if it CAN be seen that way, as it can also be seen otherwise; therefore, it is ambiguous.
Consequently, I reply that "the ideas for which the words stand are NOT essentially the same."
Similarly, the expression of words that are not the same, but 'in the ballpark' using altered phrasing (i.e., words of Consecration) was considered insufficient (pre-Vatican II). Or the idea of precision in wording in and of itself 'important.'
Yes, this is very true. I took catechism classes run by priests in 1963 wherein they very specifically stated that the canon of the Mass was literally and absolutely UNTOUCHABLE. There was no way that anyone could ever change any words of the canon, for it had been locked into its present form with the full power of the Papacy nearly 400 years ago. (It had been 393 years then, and it has been 444 years now, since Quo Primum was promulgated.)
This ought to give newcomers some idea of the upheaval of doctrine that came AFTER the unclean spirit of Vat.II had its way with Holy Mother Church.
The questioning of different words used, has led to continued debate as to invalidity or doubt towards some of the Sacraments (in some circles). And it is this very struggle that would lend credence to 'words' in and of itself having weight.
Yes, this is true. One thing that all true traditionalists share is the doubtfulness of the new forms of the various sacraments. It is most interesting that Baptism is the only one they can't manage to monkey with, and it seems to me that is because of the stellar and august simplicity of its form. How can you or why would you modify "I baptize thee, James, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?"
How or why is the question. It appears there is no way to change that without changing the meaning, but WHY would anyone want to change it in the first place???
That is the question that I have found, to which nobody has the answer, regardless of whom I ask. I say, "Can you give me one reason for changing the form of episcopal consecration?" And you know what I usually get?
Crickets.
There have been times when I have actually heard a cricket chirping, when I ask that question. I think it's my guardian angel rewarding me, in his own, subtle way! He's a great angel. I hope you can meet him some day. I'd be pleased to introduce you to him.
Nobody has an answer. I have asked NovusOrdo priests and bishops alike and they change the topic. I will give Trad priests and bishops (like +Mark Pivarunas, +Richard Williamson and +Tissier de Malarais) the credit of pausing for a moment to attempt to answer me without changing the topic. They say that there was no reason to change the form; there was none whatsoever. And then when I try to add something to that, they repeat, THERE WAS NO REASON AT ALL.
And I think they are correct.
One would think that to make such a serious change, there would have to be not only a reason, but a GOOD reason, but there wasn't even any BAD reason to change it. That's another clue for newcomers.
To top it off, this subversive and SNEAKY change (Bishop Fellay hates it when you accuse him of being sneaky, probably because the truth hurts, speaking of truth) was done ONE WHOLE YEAR before the Newmass was ipso-facto-quasi-promulgated-but-not-really.
I say that because the Newmass was never promulgated at all. It was given all the APPEARANCE of promulgation, but, and in accord with our topic here, the WORDS that are always used for promulgation of such things are nowhere to be found in the docuмents. Therefore, since the WORDS are missing, the IDEAS FOR WHICH THE WORDS STAND are insignificant. The ideas are LITERALLY meaningless, null and void, just as the validity of the Newmass is arguably null and void, according to Fr. Paul Trinchard, who BTW is not sedevacantist.
.
-
This all the point. The words of the Council ARE the Council. They are its spirit and they are its letter.
And while some argue that the words mean some thing other than they appear to mean and are really orthodox, and yet others argue that it is a bad interpretation of these words which has caused so much trouble, the reality is that the particular and peculiar words of the Council are undoubtedly what leads directly to the heterodoxy and evil interpretations. They make possible the denial of the Faith and the subversion of the Church.
So, yes indeed words have meaning, and yes indeed Truth cannot undermine or contradict itself, but the words which can be used to express it can do exactly that, and have done exactly that. Both in that Council and again, in these anemic theological dissertations by the priest's of the "new" formation.
-
.
Very well said, J.Paul.
Deception has many faces.
.
-
.
In Fr. Themann's summary of his diatribe "Resistance to what?" he makes a proposition that is highly questionable:
"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
This might be 50 years too late, but it could have been inserted into the docuмents of Vat.II, that is, if the bishops voting on them would have tolerated it. They voted in favor of a lot of ambiguous garbage, but they might not have gone so far as to vote in favor of this one sentence. They were liberals, thinking like liberals, but they might not have been quite as liberal as Fr. Themann shows himself to be with this conspicuous specimen.
If one looks at this sentence to find what it implies, what it suggests, what it might seem to say (and what it does not avoid saying by innuendo), there are a number of things that emerge. That is, if anyone cares to spend a few minutes thinking about it. Most people, that is the vast majority of people today, are far too superficial to have any desire to look closely at a sentence and understand its implications. Out of 5 million people, there may be one or two who care to know the truth. Are you one of them?
One of the direct implications of this sentence of Fr. Themann is that, "Truth is a question." Do you see why that is the case, or not?
For when truth would be not firstly a question of one thing but of something else, therefore, truth would be (firstly) a question of something else. The only way that truth could be a question of something, is for truth to be (firstly) a question.
The word "firstly" is only there to confuse the reader. It is a Fellayism. Either truth is a question, or truth is not a question. But insert "firstly" in there, and suddenly, truth can be on the one hand a question and on the other hand not a question, which would ambiguously render neutral the whole meaning of the proposition: such is the essence of AMBIGUITY. It is the denial of the principle of non-contradiction to say that a thing can be, and not be, at the same time. I.e., it is insanity.
What is the difference between "Truth is firstly a question of ideas," and "Truth is a question of ideas?" Does the word "firstly" change the meaning of the former proposition in any way? If it has no effect on the meaning, then what is the purpose of its being present in the proposition? But if it does have an effect on the meaning, what would that effect be?
This is why +Fellay doesn't want anyone to be thinking about cause and effect, when they listen to what he says. When they do so, the fallacy and subterfuge of his words are brought to light for all the world to see. He hates it when that happens. He's the subtle bishop.
Bishop Fellay is really ticked off when Resistance members closely analyze his words, because he says things in such a way that his intention is to produce an effect in the minds of the listeners without them thinking about what the cause of that effect was. In fact, he doesn't want us to think about cause and effect at all.
Remember this: if you think about what he says, you're disobedient. You should just BELIEVE everything he says, because he has the "grace of state."
Never mind that we ALL have the grace of state. Don't be disobedient by thinking about that!!
Therefore, when one of his cronies like Fr. Themann, who has learned Fellayism-liberalism well, speaks in this manner befitting of his mentor, our close inspection of the words he says is a big thorn in the side of +Fellay, who, like "that Man behind the Curtain," doesn't want to be noticed.
If you want to know what "that Man behind the Curtain" means, look up Frank Morgan, Judy Garland, and Toto, too.
.