Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 3   [ 59 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:21 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29098
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
The fact is Crimsons "being" is just the particple of to be, is the third person active of that same verb

You say that reading is to mean is is anthropomorphizing...and I say that is just stupid

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:03 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 31
Quote:
And to assume that is what Thomists do is naive and betrays a poro reading of them. We know being here analogically, not univocally.

I assume nothing. The Thomist analogia entis is not identical to the Cappadocian via negativa.
Quote:
You say that reading "is" to mean "is" is anthropomorphizing...and I say that is just stupid

It would be anthropomorphizing if it were any other attribute of finite humanity; I can't say that I see a tremendous difference here.

Contrary to what some people appear to think, I am not naively dismissing the Thomist argument. One would swear that I were attacking the divinely revealed Truth itself by having the temerity to suggest that Thomists might be wrong!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:18 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29098
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
No, accept you haven't given any challenge to Substinent Being or for that matter Substinent Intelligence, you have just asserted that their are problems and referred to a book from a secular university. I see no reason not to hold Substinent being, and I see many dangers in admitting strict, ontological differences between persons in the Trinity, so I want to know wherein lies thy objection

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:23 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:49 am
Posts: 8982
Location: St. Francis Hall, FUS
How about an easy solution to all this?

As a theology major (hence non-dabbler), I say that CrimsonCatholic is wrong. There, problem solved. Now where's my arbitration fee?

Quote:
You have assumed (without proof) that God is self-subsisting Being and that divine simplicity means that all attributes are identical in this self-subsisting Being.


Logical necessities both of God being the First Cause (for self-subsisting) and of being an infinite being without division (which is what is meant by simplicity).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:23 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:49 am
Posts: 8982
Location: St. Francis Hall, FUS
gah, double post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:26 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29098
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Catholic Cadet wrote:
How about an easy solution to all this?

As a theology major (hence non-dabbler), I say that CrimsonCatholic is wrong. There, problem solved. Now where's my arbitration fee?

Quote:
You have assumed (without proof) that God is self-subsisting Being and that divine simplicity means that all attributes are identical in this self-subsisting Being.


Logical necessities both of God being the First Cause (for self-subsisting) and of being an infinite being without division (which is what is meant by simplicity).

And besides it is heresy to say that the Divine Attributes are not indentical among themselves and with the Divine Essence... one can debate whether their distinction is merely virtual, or formal, or whatnot, but they cannot deny the dogma

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:42 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 31
Quote:
As a theology major (hence non-dabbler), I say that CrimsonCatholic is wrong. There, problem solved. Now where's my arbitration fee?

Except that I developed the position along with a doctoral student in Christian philosophy and a master's student in theology myself, and I've bounced it off both a Thomist with a doctorate in philosophy. Moreover, my own individual nuance of that position comes from Xavier Zubiri, whose qualifications pretty much match anyone you can muster.
Quote:
Logical necessities both of God being the First Cause (for self-subsisting) and of being an infinite being without division (which is what is meant by simplicity).

The first is false (as most ontological arguments for God are), and the second is not objectionable, if taken it its proper sense. I am not suggesting composition in the divine essence.
Quote:
And besides it is heresy to say that the Divine Attributes are not indentical among themselves and with the Divine Essence...

Says who? I'm not just going to bow to Ludwig Ott's beck-and-call when it comes to omnino simplex. That term had a patristic vintage long before he ever came along.
Quote:
one can debate whether their distinction is merely virtual, or formal, or whatnot, but they cannot deny the dogma

Let me guess; you think uncreated energies are heretical too. I'm not aware of any dogma that says so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:48 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:49 am
Posts: 8982
Location: St. Francis Hall, FUS
Quote:
Except that I developed the position along with a doctoral student in Christian philosophy and a master's student in theology myself, and I've bounced it off both a Thomist with a doctorate in philosophy.


Am a master's student in theology or bounced it off of?

Quote:
The first is false (as most ontological arguments for God are), and the second is not objectionable, if taken it its proper sense. I am not suggesting composition in the divine essence.


How in the world is the first one false? And what do you mean not objectionable if take in the proper sense? If there is not uniformity in the essense of God then there is division and hence a lack of simplicity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:09 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 31
Quote:
Am a master's student in theology or bounced it off of?

I'm not a master's student in theology. The point is that authority in that respect is irrelevant. My sources are as good as anyone's.
Quote:
How in the world is the first one false?

It's not valid because there is no definitive chain of logic leading from a first cause to a self-subsisting essence, and it's false because it doesn't correspond to reality, as God is not being but beyond being.
Quote:
And what do you mean not objectionable if take in the proper sense?

I mean that the essence-above-essence/being-above-being (God) IS absolutely simple, but that doesn't mean that the hypostases are within that essence so that they cannot themselves be real, but must instead be virtual, formal, etc.
Quote:
If there is not uniformity in the essense of God then there is division and hence a lack of simplicity.

I agree. It is identifying essence with being that is the problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:20 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:49 am
Posts: 8982
Location: St. Francis Hall, FUS
Quote:
I'm not a master's student in theology. The point is that authority in that respect is irrelevant. My sources are as good as anyone's.


Your knowledge and reasoning are not however. And my point was that you're a dabbler and I'm not. Therefore, be quiet and admit that you're wrong (since you and Matthew were going at each other with the dabbler comments).

Quote:
It's not valid because there is no definitive chain of logic leading from a first cause to a self-subsisting essence, and it's false because it doesn't correspond to reality, as God is not being but beyond being.


1. May I please have the contact info for your dealer?
2. If God is the First Cause, and hence does not rely upon anything for His existence, then He must by definition be self-sustaining. To not be self-sustaining is to require something for one's sustainment.
3. Please explain how a being (as opposed to an impersonal thing) can exist without being. Sounds to me that, at the very least, you're setting up a false dichotomy that is similar to saying that God must either transcend the universe or be immanent in it.

Quote:
I mean that the essence-above-essence/being-above-being (God) IS absolutely simple, but that doesn't mean that the hypostases are within that essence so that they cannot themselves be real, but must instead be virtual, formal, etc.


Mind explaining those terms in a way that does not remind me of the hyperspace bands in the Honor Harrington books? Because referring to e/e and b/b really just doesn't make any sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:49 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 31
Quote:
Your knowledge and reasoning are not however.

Exactly how would you know enough to reasonably comment on either my level of knowledge or my reasoning skills? Your hasty judgments are unwise.
Quote:
my point was that you're a dabbler and I'm not.

Which proves exactly nothing.
Quote:
Therefore, be quiet and admit that you're wrong

You've recklessly misjudged my level of knowledge already; now you're merely compounding it by recklessly misjudging my position. If people won't be quiet and listen to what my position is before judging it, then it hardly makes any sense for me to be quiet when it's being misrepresented.
Quote:
since you and Matthew were going at each other with the dabbler comments

Matthew called me a dabbler; I pointed out an actual failing in his argument that is a sign of dabblers. Big difference.
Quote:
1. May I please have the contact info for your dealer?

This is the seriousness with which you treat matters of faith? I'm guessing you're not quite out of undergraduate life yet.
Quote:
2. If God is the First Cause, and hence does not rely upon anything for His existence, then He must by definition be self-sustaining. To not be self-sustaining is to require something for one's sustainment.

First, self-subsistence isn't the same thing as self-sustenance, at least if you separate hypostatic existence from ousia. But leaving that aside, you've already fallen into the trap of trying to apply the "need" for a cause to God to argue that God is self-sustaining. If God doesn't "need" a cause in the first place, then the argument that He is self-sustaining is fallacious.
Quote:
3. Please explain how a being (as opposed to an impersonal thing) can exist without being. Sounds to me that, at the very least, you're setting up a false dichotomy that is similar to saying that God must either transcend the universe or be immanent in it.

Ummm, it's kind of the point that I can't possibly explain what it means to be hyperousios. That would be like me trying to explain what it's like to be eternal or omniscient or the exact nature of the process involved in eternally begetting the Son. These are things that are definitionally beyond human reason, which is why you inevitably end up with silly dichotomies about transcendence and immanence when people try to explain them.
Quote:
Mind explaining those terms in a way that does not remind me of the hyperspace bands in the Honor Harrington books? Because referring to e/e and b/b really just doesn't make any sense.

It's not that it doesn't make sense; it's just definitionally incomprehensible to human reason. I'm guessing that your theology studies haven't covered much of the Cappadocian Fathers' apophatic methodology. A good introduction is Jaroslav Pelikan's Christianity and Classical Culture. But the idea of God as hyperousios ousios, "beyond being," or "no-being" is well documented in Eastern patristic studies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:18 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:49 am
Posts: 8982
Location: St. Francis Hall, FUS
Ok, so basically your attempt at theology is "I like this idea. But it is completely uncomprehensible and can't be explained in any manner." How about you stick with what the Church has defined?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:28 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 31
Quote:
Ok, so basically your attempt at theology is "I like this idea. But it is completely uncomprehensible and can't be explained in any manner."

"Like" has nothing to do with it. Reason says that it is an area where reason cannot possibly go; therefore, I don't. The explanation is quite literally that it is a transcendent aspect of God, something that simply cannot be understood by finite minds.
Quote:
How about you stick with what the Church has defined?

The Church hasn't defined anything in this area. That is, unless someone went and dogmatized the Summa while I wasn't looking. Apart from that, I am content to rely on the uniform Tradition of the Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:52 am 
Offline
Hammer of Heretics
Hammer of Heretics
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:02 pm
Posts: 6466
I will address Crimson's heresy when I return home Monday from work. And yes, I mean heresy in the strict sense, complete with pertinacity of the will. Relegating dogma to the realm of theological opinion is an obvious attempt to usurp what is the doctrine of the Church. The Nouvelle Theologians were adept at this sleight of hand and they were also very fond of the eclecticism of the easterns for reasons that are quite obvious. The similarities in thought are too great to be mere coincidence.

_________________
Ora et Labora


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:08 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 31
Quote:
I will address Crimson's heresy when I return home Monday from work. And yes, I mean heresy in the strict sense, complete with pertinacity of the will.

For my alleged heresy to be pertinacious, I would have to at least understand that the matter was dogma and willfully deny the matter. I sincerely do not understand how the position I am opposing has been dogmatized. Nor have I seen any demonstration that would compel a reasonable person to think so.
Quote:
Relegating dogma to the realm of theological opinion is an obvious attempt to usurp what is the doctrine of the Church.

And relegating theological opinion to the level of dogma is an obvious attempt to arrogate the authority of the Magisterium to private theologians. Don't be ridiculous.
Quote:
The Nouvelle Theologians were adept at this sleight of hand and they were also very fond of the eclecticism of the easterns for reasons that are quite obvious. The similarities in thought are too great to be mere coincidence

Well, you've got that part right. The nouvelle theologie exactly IS Catholicism in my view. Are you saying that anyone following in the steps of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Yves Cardinal Congar, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Maurice Blondel is a pertinacious heretic?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:57 am 
Offline
Middle Management
Middle Management
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:15 pm
Posts: 28909
Location: Sacred Heart of Jesus
Religion: Catholic
Blondel was a heretic. Some of the others have made questionable statements at best.

_________________
Whence are we to find words enough fully to tell the happiness of that marriage which the Church cements, and the Eucharistic oblation confirms, and the benediction signs and seals; which angels carry back the news of to heaven, which the Father holds as ratified? -Tertullian

Uniformity with the Will of God by St. Alphonsus Liguori


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:08 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:27 pm
Posts: 31
I see. Well, I suppose there is no point in proceeding with the discussion then. If people consider Blondel a heretic and the others suspect, then it seems likely that I would be considered one as well, no matter how much explaining I could do. Apologies for intruding, gentlemen. I can only commend the original poster to ask elsewhere about the subject, as the opinions will clearly not universally echo what you might get here.

You might consider reading the discussion here, for example: http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/2005/03/st_gregory_pala.html

If that piques your interest, there are several other articles on the blog that might also be useful. Also, there have been several extended discussions on divine simplicity at the Pontifications blog: http://catholica.pontifications.net.

Grace and peace,
Jonathan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:18 pm 
Offline
Middle Management
Middle Management
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:15 pm
Posts: 28909
Location: Sacred Heart of Jesus
Religion: Catholic
Jonathan,

No one said that you had to leave. I really don't see how the fact that we think someone else may be a heretic is important to this discussion. You have been presenting your arguments just fine here before mentioning the names of theologians that you like.

_________________
Whence are we to find words enough fully to tell the happiness of that marriage which the Church cements, and the Eucharistic oblation confirms, and the benediction signs and seals; which angels carry back the news of to heaven, which the Father holds as ratified? -Tertullian

Uniformity with the Will of God by St. Alphonsus Liguori


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:32 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 4668
Location: Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
I mean that the essence-above-essence/being-above-being (God) IS absolutely simple, but that doesn't mean that the hypostases are within that essence so that they cannot themselves be real, but must instead be virtual, formal, etc.


So the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are uncreated but outside of the Divine Essence? Doesn't that mean the three Persons are not God?

_________________
I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen. -- St. Polycarp's prayer of thanksgiving at his martyrdom, 156 A.D.

Baby No. 8 is on the way!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 3   [ 59 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to:  
cron