.

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.

.

.

At this point I would like to refer once again to my post on page two:

Post

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 (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.


.

.

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.


.

.

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.

.

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:

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

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

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.


.