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.

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 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?  

This is the Regina Coeli Report June 2013

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.


.

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.

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.

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

This is the Regina Coeli Report June 2013

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...

.