tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1337613708236742414..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: An exegetical principle from FortescueEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1206536115016891962021-06-22T11:45:46.377-07:002021-06-22T11:45:46.377-07:00"There is another general issue here. These ..."There is another general issue here. These early Fathers are witnesses of the belief of their time."<br /><br />Imagine that the Southern Baptist Convention merged with the government. Then it persecuted all the other denominations and burned books. Thousands of years later historians are reading the church literature from 2020 and all of it agrees with Souther Baptist principles. This is because those fathers were witnesses of the belief of their time....right? Well, no, absolutely not. Once one realizes this, patristics mean a lot less.jorgennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84164650580949746932021-06-22T06:40:19.367-07:002021-06-22T06:40:19.367-07:00Talmid,
Fair point. I guess I was thinking more i...Talmid,<br /><br />Fair point. I guess I was thinking more in terms of dogmatic theology (as opposed to morals) when saying there was no incentive for the Church to change its teaching. Though even here there could be some. Like for ecumenical reasons (Cf. the modern church on "no salvation outside the Church" vs the Council of Florence).<br /><br />But I also had in mind a contradiction at the level of supreme authority. For example, an anathema issued by a Council that anathematizes a previous canon. There doesn't seem to be a huge incentive for the Church to do this though there could be incentive for the Church to water down her teaching and effectively neutralize it. (Again, see "no salvation outside the Church").<br /><br />On morals, it's not as clear as to what is truly infallible. For example, I can't think of any anathemas issued by a Council or any ex cathedra pronouncements targeted specifically at morality.<br /><br />Also, one could argue that the Church through Francis has caved on capital punishment. Possibly also on usury. Even if neither of those were pronounced with the highest level of authority. Which brings us back to my point that infallibility is so narrowly defined.<br /><br />(Not that I intend to open the cans of worms on capital punishment or usury here, but I just wanted to be clear on my meaning.)<br /><br />On your last paragraph: thanks. Yes, I do pray. Even the Rosary with my family and going to Mass. I think that it's at least a good opportunity to reorient ourselves to the Good, the True, and the Beautiful regardless of whether particular Catholic teachings are literally true. (And also for social reasons, like I want my children to be part of the group.) Maybe it's not the best solution, I don't know, but it's what seems best to me at the moment. And I do admire many of the saints.<br /><br />Anyway, I suppose at this point I've gotten way off of the OP, though I guess it was a semi-organic development? Ha!<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. Best wishes.Albinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569576207090703708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57894347109574586922021-06-21T20:43:43.366-07:002021-06-21T20:43:43.366-07:00I disagree completely that there is no incentive t...I disagree completely that there is no incentive to change dogma or infallible teaching, all you have to do is look at how the modern world attacks the Church for it. almost a century ago a lot of protestant churches just gave up on the traditional view on contraception and are today changing their views on a lot of other issues to try to adapt to modern society or because the average protestant, being born in this era, just see nothing wrong with the new ideas. <br /><br />The catholic church is attacked day and night by the beliefs it defends and has a lot of liberals inside it, specially on the elite, it is strange that it continues to stomp its foot on the ground and insist that nothing will change if it is purely human. But i don't see this argument as that strong to a non-christian, so i won't comment it further.<br /><br />About metaphysics, that is cool. I probably misunderstood you or mistaken you for someone else. In this case, feel free to investigate. Things are probablu more baseyan, them. <br /><br />A advice that i give is to not make your jorney only intellectual. Take a look at the saints lifes and see the ones you like, maybe try praying, do not stand close to toxic catholic groups and make sure you live a life at least close to what catholic morality requires*. The average internet skeptic would respond to that with rage, but the idea that we can easily come to accept something that the heart rejects is ridiculously naive. If you are already doing it, them you truly are smarter that i was!<br /><br />Anyway, good luck there! <br /><br /><br />*Which, giving your metaphysics, you likely already doTalmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14607439169329611062021-06-21T07:54:59.259-07:002021-06-21T07:54:59.259-07:00Talmid,
...i also see the Churh infallibility cla...Talmid,<br /><br /><i>...i also see the Churh infallibility claim never being falsified, as far as i know, with so much time passing and so much crap happening as just incredible if it is just a human institution...</i><br /><br />It doesn't seem that incredible to me because the scope of infallibility is so narrowly defined. And, there is no motivation to those in power in the Church to contradict something infallibly defined as that would be ecclesiastical suicide.<br /><br /><i>, i do find weighing the probability of catholicism being true a bad idea...if you don't think it is a real possibility. If i remember right, you do not agree with the catholic view of God as a person...</i><br /><br />No, I certainly think Catholicism being true is a real possibility. I can imagine evidence sufficient to convince me. It wouldn't even have to be super strong, just stronger than the difficulties associated with Catholicism. My metaphysical view is not something I take as certain but is only provisional based on the evidence. In any case, I would certainly say that personhood exists in God in a super-eminent way, since personhood is a perfection. But it's not as if you can necessarily deduce from that alone that God intervenes in the world or answers our prayers.<br /><br />Besides, I'm fully willing to grant whatever Catholic metaphysics you'd like. I think the difficulties still remain. I do not reject a Catholic (Aristotelian-Thomistic) metaphysics a priori. Not by any stretch. In fact I mostly still identify with that tradition.Albinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569576207090703708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14711341199152059362021-06-20T21:23:58.481-07:002021-06-20T21:23:58.481-07:00Tony: Let's see: are they supposed to (A) wait...Tony: <i>Let's see: are they supposed to (A) wait 5 years to get married? Or (B) get married but wait 5 years to start having kids?</i> <br /><br />Alexander: <i>It's one of alternatives (C) they save money to then marry and buy their house, or (D) they rent a house, and in parallel save money to then buy their own house.<br /></i> <br /><br />@ Alexander: so, your option C is effectively the same as my option A: they wait 5 years while saving, get married, and buy a house. I'm not saying this is impossible. I am suggesting that it is not a picture of a <i>good</i> social arrangement, in that the young man and young woman are <i>otherwise</i> ready to marry but must delay it for many years. <br /><br />And option D means MOST people rent for a while, which perpetuates <i>other</i> social difficulties. Not impossible ones, perhaps, but problems nonetheless. It requires also that rents be low enough so that they CAN save enough to buy their own eventually, which is not simply a matter of choice: With lower pressure from young people not being readily able to buy their own, rents will increase to equalize demand. A rental economy has as many downsides as a loan economy. <br /><br /><i>And, if they wanted to save some of money needed on this, they well might do as my parents and grandparents used to do it until about 30 years ago: they purchased the terrain and built their houses (plural) themselves.</i> <br /><br />Yes, my grandfather did the same. This works in a great big open country that is thinly populated. Not so well in a long-settled like in Italy or Japan, where there is simply no plausible <i>space</i> for a new house on fresh land that doesn't in effect displace some other establishment. <br /><br />Look, I am not too keen on the modern American model of buying a house on a 30-year loan, and I strongly advise young couples to shoot for a lesser term if nothing else. But home loans have been around for a good deal longer than 30 years, and the jubilee model will generate as many (or more) problems as it will solve in getting people into owning their home. <br /><br />As Michael's comments indicate, I think the jubilee can ONLY work (or rather, "work") in a situation where the "economy" is effectively primitive because most people make their own stuff and trade a very small portion of their productive output. (Which may have described Israel for 400 years after Moses.) But as a society develops, and as people specialize in their professions, and (consequently) as <b>wealth grows</b> toward the sheer possibility of some degree of leisure and the pursuit of arts, sciences, philosophy and theology, it ceases to be as fully adequate for the needs. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48313382941415833022021-06-20T04:44:04.448-07:002021-06-20T04:44:04.448-07:00im curious, what reinterpretations of christian se...im curious, what reinterpretations of christian sexuality are we talking about? <br />sry for being out of the loopGruiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15916751358706417391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44610700868631124142021-06-19T07:30:17.520-07:002021-06-19T07:30:17.520-07:00But when you have a principle such as Papal author...But when you have a principle such as Papal authority which has also been plainly taught for centuries, what happens when there is an apparent conflict between papal authority and another "plain" teaching?Maolsheachlannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406722311993627528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73750879744769240272021-06-18T21:07:30.668-07:002021-06-18T21:07:30.668-07:00@SoY
I agree with you, the Augustinian Principle ...@SoY<br /><br />I agree with you, the Augustinian Principle was likely working to the guys doing the judging. If Gallileo had actual evidence* them he would never had gotten in trouble. people would just be like "oh, that is cool, them we need to interpret Scripture better", like it happened way latter. <br /><br />@Albinus<br /><br />Oh, sorry them, i understood you wrong. It is just that if the Church had actually infalible declared a wrong thing true them catholicism would be falsified, so the stakes are pretty high here. <br /><br />About the geocentrism thing making the Church less convincing as the Bride of Christ, i do agree with that. I see the affair having very limited weight on the scale, but i think i get your reasoning. <br /><br />Giving a similar example, i also see the Churh infallibility claim never being falsified, as far as i know, with so much time passing and so much crap happening as just incredible if it is just a human institution, but i would not say that this proves that catholicism is true. <br /><br />Also, as i said before, i do find weighing the probability of catholicism being true a bad idea if you are not metaphysically ready to accept it, if you don't think it is a real possibility. If i remember right, you do not agree with the catholic view of God as a person, so i don't see why discuss catholicism, really. The evidence required to make you give up your metaphysical view is likely pretty high, after all. <br /><br /><br />*or if he was not a idiot, really. sure he had guts, but come on, the shape of the universe is not THAT importantTalmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17330410170999349372021-06-18T20:03:31.428-07:002021-06-18T20:03:31.428-07:00The problem isn't that the investment bank wil...The problem isn't that the investment bank will amass more wealth than is just. It's that the banks will <i>control</i> all new enterprises. No legal framework can mitigate that, because it's the whole point of the proposal. Those wishing to found new businesses in competition with existing firms would have to surrender control over their businesses to their investors.<br /><br />While this would be mostly harmless in an economy where capital was widely distributed among the people at large, what would happen in one where capital was held by a small minority? In effect, founders of new businesses would have to give control to ... the existing firms they'd be competing with. I trust you see why that would be a problem?<br /><br />No, on balance, disallowing long-term credit gives those who already have capital a stronger hand over those who don't. It would work against your stated goals, and therefore is a bad idea. Similarly, the lead-up to a jubilee year, if that were instituted, would "reset" the economy ... to favor the already wealthy at the expense of potential challengers. To be sure, the jubilee itself would work in debtors' favor, but there wouldn't be many debtors to take advantage of it, so that wouldn't matter.Michael Brazierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510942619007870591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64959511054323014572021-06-18T13:46:33.248-07:002021-06-18T13:46:33.248-07:00I will comment on this and Talmud can weight in.
...I will comment on this and Talmud can weight in.<br /><br />>However, I DO think it makes it less probable that Catholicism is true, just more on the grounds that I find it implausible that God would allow His Church to make such an egregious error...as if God wanted His Church to be a laughing stock.<br /><br />By that logic why would God ever allow sexually immoral men to become Pope(Alexander VI, Sergus III and John XI etc)? Why would God allow evil? etc etc...(see Brian Davies for the Problem of evil)<br /><br />Also a "laughing stock"? That is just the triumph of propaganda over truth. Galileo was still a pounce. His arguments for heliocentracism where godawful (no pun intended) and did not prove the Earth moved. If anything his own extremism set science back. Also by the standards of modern science Galileo was still wrong about most of the particulars.<br /><br />He wasn't a great scientist. He made a lucky guess on one or two details. Nothing more.<br /><br />Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' debate with John Lennox. I paraphrase from memory.<br /><br />Lennox. "Science has finally showed contrary to previous opinion held by philosophers and scientists the Cosmos had a beginning. Like the Book of Genesis tells us."<br /><br />Dawkins" "Well Genesis had a 50/50 chance of it being one or the other and just happened to guess correctly it seems."<br /><br />*Laughter*<br /><br />I normally don't give Dawkins credit because he is a philosophical incompetent like most New Atheists. But I will give him that.<br /><br />Of course I don't see how Galileo was better? Cheers again. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80774971877654503772021-06-18T13:28:04.298-07:002021-06-18T13:28:04.298-07:00Albinus
>If that's the best you've got...Albinus<br /><br />>If that's the best you've got in response to what any unbiased observer can see is an extremely powerful piece of evidence that the Church Herself considered heliocentrism as heretical, contrary to Scripture, and gravely harmful to the Faith, then clearly you have no argument.<br /><br />No it is still weak sauce IMHO. But suit yerself.<br /><br />Yer "unbiased" sir? Are you sure? I think not. Yer a skeptical polemicist looking for an argument to justify yer claim. So I think yer hardly unbias IMHO but again suit yerself.<br />I don't judge you do you.<br /><br />But IMHO it clearly is NOT the Church Herself considering heliocentracism heretical. It is this court of the Inquisition who has made this tentative judgement at the time based on the information at the time.<br /><br />Or more precisely it considered Galileo's view of heliocentracism false and technically speaking,<b> if we go by the modern science, it was clearly wrong.</b><br /><br />I mean Albinus if you want to be literalistic and fundamentalist(which I think is yer hidden unconscious presupposition here) then well Galileo was still wrong wasn't he? The Sun isn't fixed in the center of our solar system it orbits on the Galactic plain around the Supermassive Black Hole at the center of our Galaxy.<br /><br />We don't technically go around the sun but the Solar Mass point etc...<br /><br />If Fermi's Paradox suggests we are alone in the universe and are the only intelligent life observing it well then we really are the center now aren't we?<br /><br />> I can sympathize with you not wanting to accept that this is (was) in fact the official position of the Church, the Pope, the Holy Office, and her highest Doctors and theologians, but that doesn't change the reality. I'm done.<br /><br />Rather I understand you have a need to find fault here where none exists but I've been down this road before with Extremist Radtrads who have tried to claim with a straight face the Church teaches Geocentracism.<br /><br />Their "arguments" did not convince me and you have not convinced me either but I wish you well.<br /><br />Cheers.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38729501903254073662021-06-18T09:22:22.012-07:002021-06-18T09:22:22.012-07:00Michael: "It's routine, in modern busines...Michael: <i>"It's routine, in modern business, for someone starting a new business to pay for the land, equipment, etc. the business needs by taking out a loan, secured by the business's assets."</i><br /><br />That routine would necessarily cease to be such. In a scenario with Jubilee Years, new businesses would need to be funded the way they always were before the modern loaning mindset settled in: by a) first making the money and then investing it into developing a new business; and/or b) starting a smaller business and funding the bigger one; and/or c) pooling a large enough amount from several partners to the new business.<br /><br /><i>"While it functioned pretty well, I doubt that's a model you want to imitate."</i><br /><br />There are variations on that idea. If coupled with anti-usury laws, an investment bank would become a partner at n% of the business, and by extension earn n% of the profits (and lose n% if/when things went down) for as long as the investment lasted, with the original owner always having a right to pay more than those n% back to the bank, thus reacquiring control over their business until it were 100% back into their own hands.<br /><br />Such a system would strictly prevent the investment bank from being able to earn more than the "just price" of its investment. And when a Jubilee Year came the relationship wouldn't change, as there's no loan involved, nor interest, nor nothing of the sort, just a very legit partnership.<br /><br />The downside would be that at any point the investment bank might want to pull off if the business owner proved a bad manager causing the bank to lose money. This would be mostly fair, as long as it didn't cause their (former) partner, as well as the other stakeholders (employees, if any; the community in which the business operates; its clients with ongoing contracts etc.), to end up in penury. Hence, a good balance would be the legal framework granting a Distributist principle I refer to as "autonomic preservation", that is, the bank would be allowed to back off from the partnership up to the point it didn't leave stakeholders without the means of production needed for their economic autonomy.<br /><br />Combine all these elements and you have investors in investment banks able to fairly profit from the risk they take, business owners to fairly obtain and start operating the means of production their businesses require, and little risk of a zaibatsu-style concentration of economic power.Alexander Gieghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12282340926229637743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33165492553272114362021-06-18T06:13:50.038-07:002021-06-18T06:13:50.038-07:00Talmid,
I have never claimed that the Galileo aff...Talmid,<br /><br />I have never claimed that the Galileo affair (or more broadly the Church's position on heliocentrism) falsified the infallibility of the Church.<br /><br />However, I DO think it makes it less probable that Catholicism is true, just more on the grounds that I find it implausible that God would allow His Church to make such an egregious error...as if God wanted His Church to be a laughing stock.<br /><br />Sure, maybe God has "reasons". That's fine. I don't think the Galileo affair is, on its own, a take down argument. But it's one part of the evidence to be taken into consideration when attempting to adjudicate whether Catholicism being true is more plausible than Catholicism being false.Albinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569576207090703708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40133643023764650572021-06-18T06:06:35.507-07:002021-06-18T06:06:35.507-07:00Ya'Kov,
If that's the best you've got...Ya'Kov,<br /><br />If that's the best you've got in response to what any unbiased observer can see is an extremely powerful piece of evidence that the Church Herself considered heliocentrism as heretical, contrary to Scripture, and gravely harmful to the Faith, then clearly you have no argument. I can sympathize with you not wanting to accept that this is (was) in fact the official position of the Church, the Pope, the Holy Office, and her highest Doctors and theologians, but that doesn't change the reality. I'm done.Albinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569576207090703708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33559868010468254662021-06-18T05:22:33.321-07:002021-06-18T05:22:33.321-07:00Talmid,
Here is a concept. The Church is not inf...Talmid,<br /><br />Here is a concept. The Church is not infallible when it says Nestorious is a heretic. But She is infallible when at Ephesus or Chalcedon She and unambigously formally says Nestorianism(the actual doctrine that bears his name) is heresy. <br /><br />At the time Galileo made a claim that appeared to contradict Scripture and he had no proof to back it up. People who think that old pounce was a martyr for SCIENCE(good Heavens Miss Sakamoto yer beautiful and all that....) miss the fact his Science was awful.<br /><br />According to the Augustinian Principle "“When there is an apparent conflict between a Scripture passage and an assertion about the natural world grounded on sense or reason, the literal reading of the Scripture passage should prevail as long as the latter assertion lacks demonstration."<br /><br />Galileo didn't produce that and it would be centuries before Science could muster the proof.<br /><br />OTOH if one wishes to be a jerk(& I do). Einstein's relativity <b>in a sense</b> vindicates the Inquisition. Motion according to Special relativity depends on the viewpoint of the Observer. We live in an A-Centric Universe and if you models Special Relativity in an extreme way then the center of the Universe is whereever you are standing. So in that sense Earth is the "Center" and Galileo was "wrong". I read this analysis not from Sungenis(who abused this concept) but in my secular textbook on Physics from college.<br /><br />PERSPECTIVES IN PHYSICS by E. Hecht. <br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Perspective-Hecht/dp/0201028301<br /><br />I still have that Textbook from college. I know the author by anecdote once told his class he was a Pantheist and thought God was a She. At least that is what my friend who took his class told me. I miss college. <br /><br />So Bob's yer uncle. In a sense Geocentracism could be "true".<br /><br />Mind you I do not endorse Bob Sungenis' wacko'ness.<br /><br />Cheers all.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13136040803425296992021-06-17T20:38:31.893-07:002021-06-17T20:38:31.893-07:00@Albinus
I agree that the language is pretty impr...@Albinus<br /><br />I agree that the language is pretty impressive, that is true. But i still have problems with your argument here, i still do not see this as proving that geocentrism was taught as dogma by the guys responsable for the trial. Maybe they were disposed to accept Gallileo reinterpretation of Scripture if he had evidence of his claims, Augustine would do it. <br /><br />Now, since i dont want to just parrot SoY argument i ask a diferent question: since when the trials of the inquisition were infallible? If they were, something like St. Joan of Arc corrupted trial would had falsified catholicism long before Gallileo was born. Even things done on concils could be fallible in certain cases, i think, imagine a mere trial...Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6538841111071271612021-06-17T18:06:22.245-07:002021-06-17T18:06:22.245-07:00Alexander, let's take a case that's much h...Alexander, let's take a case that's much harder for you. It's routine, in modern business, for someone starting a new business to pay for the land, equipment, etc. the business needs by taking out a loan, secured by the business's assets. In the years just before a jubilee, such loans would not be made - which means that, in those years, no new businesses would be started.<br /><br />You may reply that new businesses could be funded by selling shares of their ownership to investors. And they could - but that hands over control of the business to the investors, which they might not even <i>want</i> (and certainly the founders won't.) Creditors have no right to direct what debtors do with the money lent them, and to most creditors that's actually an advantage.<br /><br />And imagine, if you can, a world in which banks had to <i>own</i> shares in businesses to put money into them. Bankers would be a lot more powerful than they are now.<br /><br />Actually, we don't have to imagine it. The <i>zaibatsu</i> system in Japan before WWII worked like that; with the result that four families controlled most of Japan's economy. While it functioned pretty well, I doubt that's a model you want to imitate.Michael Brazierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510942619007870591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57889092887054450232021-06-17T12:53:55.761-07:002021-06-17T12:53:55.761-07:00Pretty weak. I am sorry Albinus but you remind me...Pretty weak. I am sorry Albinus but you remind me of the wee young Socialist undergrad waggs I would sometimes chat with back in college(this is not a jab at yer politics I dina about them) who would protest in conversations to me that there was “Freedom of Religion” in the Old Soviet Union because Article 52 of the Soviet Constitution granted freedom of religion. <br />Except as I said elsewhere to you ye can hold the First Amendment next to Article 52 and pretend freedom of religion was the policy in the USSR but history tells a different story.<br /><br />Now were the Soviets ignoring their own Constitution when they repressed religion in their nation? No, rather they didn't interpret their Constitution according to the post enlightenment Classic Liberal principles of Thomas Pane like we do with the First Amendment. They interpreted it according to Marxist ideology and dialectical materialism philosophy and as a result they interpreted it to mean old superstitious religious throw backs are granted the right to go to Christmas and Easter services in a Russian Orthodox Church. But good luck letting Billy Graham have a crusade during the height of the cold war pre Gorbachov. <br /><br />All you did was quote a document and read yer own ideas into it. I read it with the mind of the Church and Tradition.<br /><br />> The Catholic apologists tend to not draw your attention to this (many of them have probably not read it) and instead just focus on Galileo being accused as "suspected of heresy".<br /><br />Obviously you where not around when Bob Sungenis a “Catholic” Apologist and a revert from Fundamentalist Reformed Christianity (who apparently didn’t leave his Protestant mindset behind when he returned) was pushing the idea Geocentracism was in fact a dogma. He quotes all these texts and Traditionalist and Conservative Catholics alike dealt with his novel claims.<br /><br /><br />> As you can see, it goes much deeper than that. I was shocked myself the first time I read it.<br /><br />I am not, everything here is consistent with the Augustinian principle. Notice nowhere in this decree are the faithful instructed not to try to disprove Geocentracism? Bellermine didn’t think it was possible but we would have to wait centuries for the science to catch up. Meanwhile the facts on the ground are after Galileo and before 1824 the Church did lift restrictions. Galileo’s books where on the index (no big loss he was a pounce) but Copernicus’ books where taken off. It was permitted to teach Heliocentracism as a theory. Which if Galileo had done in the first place he would not have gotten in trouble. The Church by contrast STILL cannot ever allow Arianism to be taught as a Theory without heresy. So I stand by my claim based on the Norms of Catholic Tradition and teaching. Geocentracism is not a formal doctrine.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59431925275219476492021-06-17T11:34:22.096-07:002021-06-17T11:34:22.096-07:00Albinus
>Actually, the part about Jesus not kn...Albinus<br /><br />>Actually, the part about Jesus not knowing the day causes a whole 'nother problem. <br /><br />Only if you deny the traditional Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation and the two natures. Jesus has a human and divine nature united in one divine person. But the human intellect of Jesus is finite in knowledge not omniscient and Jesus only reveals to us the knowledge infused in his human intellect. The "day and the Hour" are not in his human intellect and thus not His to reveal or "know" via that intellect even though as God in the Divine Intellect He knows the day and the hour.<br /><br />But I know Catholic Tradition and I apply it. I don't confess the twin errors of scripture alone and perspicuity. <br /><br />So there cannot be a problem unless you wish to impose upon me a non-Catholic view of the Incarnation which I don't think you would do as it would be a foolish counter argument.<br /><br />>Positing the Church as the interpreter of Scripture doesn't help at all. In fact, it runs afoul of Fortescue's Principle. :-)<br /><br />Then Fortescue's principle has not been adequately explained in light of Luther's perspicuity heresy. <br /><br />>On invincible ignorance: The point is that people like Craig know at least as much about the evidence for Catholicism as you do and are still unconvinced.<br /><br />But we don't know or cannot know all his reasons for belief or disbelief in Catholicism & wither or not his reasons are merely erroneous views held in good faith or wither he is resisting truth out of sinful malice.<br /><br />We can only speculate on his inner life or argue with him to change his mind. We cannot know his heart.<br /><br />>Which suggests, the evidence isn't sufficient.<br /><br />I would say the evidence for belief in evolution is sufficient but there are ID critics and others who doubt it. So this objection is trivial. <br /><br />I don't see how you can test wither or not Craig truly knows the arguments for or against Catholicism. Unless you challenge him to believe and have it out with him. Like I am having it out with you(in a good natured way).<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />>Which, again, suggests that it isn't actually about the evidence.<br /><br />Yeh I don't know why people deny the existence of God or evolution or think Positivism is a valid concept and don't get me started on Biden voters ;-). But I don't think that really prove the evidence of Catholicism isn't sufficient.<br /><br />Cheers and Blessings.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71045654697525158612021-06-17T08:35:26.112-07:002021-06-17T08:35:26.112-07:00Michael: "We couldn't do it today without...Michael: <i>"We couldn't do it today without abandoning long-term credit for nearly everybody, which would cause a lot more suffering than the present state of affairs."</i><br /><br />Not necessarily. There are societies, such as current day China, that don't have as a cultural habit people taking credit. The custom there is for people to obsessively save money, usually about 50% of their income, living on the other 50%. This way, when it comes time for the big purchases, medical expenses, retirement etc., they have the money in hand, they don't depend on taking it as loans.<br /><br />The modern adoption of the Jubilee Year, set to happen, let's say, 50 years from today, would give a LOT of time for people to adjust from a lending mentality into a saving mentality. It'd be harder for those in societies that don't already practice heavy saving, yes, but then, they'd have about two generations to get there, which is plenty of time.<br /><br />Tony: <i>Let's see: are they supposed to (A) wait 5 years to get married? Or (B) get married but wait 5 years to start having kids?</i><br /><br />It's one of alternatives (C) they save money to then marry and buy their house, or (D) they rent a house, and in parallel save money to then buy their own house.<br /><br />And, if they wanted to save some of money needed on this, they well might do as my parents and grandparents used to do it until about 30 years ago: they purchased the terrain and built their houses (plural) themselves.<br /><br />My paternal grandfather built four, all on weekends. His main one in one town, another in the neighbor town (which he gave to his son when he married), a third as a small ranch, and fourth as a beach one. His sister's husband, my great-uncle, did similar, except he built five. Both were lower middle class, and paid contractors as helpers, while doing the heavy lifting themselves on weekends. As for his other sister's husband, he was richer and had his main house fully made for him by 3rd party contractors, but he still went the path of buying the terrain and having the construction made there to his exact specifications, rather than purchasing an already existing one.<br /><br />As you see, these are all cultural adaptations. If society has moved in a way that makes taking loans so to speak "obligatory", that's still a social option, not a real need, and society could easily change again if its members so desired.Alexander Gieghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12282340926229637743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16201710025175064092021-06-17T07:09:34.983-07:002021-06-17T07:09:34.983-07:00Ya'Kov,
Actually, the part about Jesus not kn...Ya'Kov,<br /><br />Actually, the part about Jesus not knowing the day causes a whole 'nother problem. (since traditional Catholic theology holds that Jesus knows the day even as man) but in any case Jesus not knowing the day and hour is fully compatible with him knowing that it will take place within a certain broader time-frame.<br /><br />Main my point in the other thread, though, Ya'Kov, was NOT that there isn't some way to avoid Jesus being a false prophet but that Divine Inspiration of Scripture is called into question. (maybe you need to hit "load more" at the bottom to see those comments). I also specifically mentioned and dealt with the Transfiguration there. Positing the Church as the interpreter of Scripture doesn't help at all. In fact, it runs afoul of Fortescue's Principle. :-)<br /><br />On invincible ignorance: The point is that people like Craig know at least as much about the evidence for Catholicism as you do and are still unconvinced. Which suggests, as Anonymous pointed out above, that the evidence does not clearly point to Catholicism but is instead open to interpretation. Which suggests, the evidence isn't sufficient. Sure, maybe everyone like Craig is just blinded by their vices or is otherwise dishonest and malicious but that seems highly implausible. So what you're left with is an appeal to God as working in mysterious ways, that God for reasons known to himself just hasn't given him the grace to see it yet. Which, again, suggests that it isn't actually about the evidence.<br /><br />Cheers to you also.Albinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569576207090703708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90649250600429606382021-06-17T06:41:05.710-07:002021-06-17T06:41:05.710-07:00Ya'kov and Talmid,
The Holy Office condemned ...Ya'kov and Talmid,<br /><br />The Holy Office condemned the motion of the earth during the Galileo affair. Yes, penally, Galileo was pronounced "suspect of heresy", but that's not the whole picture.<br /><br />Here is an excerpt from the sentencing of Galileo during his trial in 1633 (the document can be found online).<br /><br />Whereas you, Galileo[...]were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the <b>false doctrine</b> taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion[...] [for] following the position of Copernicus, which are <b>contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture</b><br />[...] <b>by command of His Holiness</b> and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:<br /><br />The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and <b>formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.</b><br /><br />The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and <b>theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.</b><br /><br />[..."false doctrine" ..."false opinion"]<br /><br />And in order that a <b>doctrine so pernicious might be wholly rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave prejudice of Catholic truth</b>, a decree was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index prohibiting the books which treat of this doctrine and <b>declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.</b><br /><br />[...] "false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun" [...] "an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been <b>declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture.</b><br /><br />[...]<br /><br />[...]the declaration <b>made by His Holiness</b> and published by the Holy Congregation of the Index has been announced to you, wherein it is declared that <b>the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures</b> and therefore cannot be defended or held. [...] said opinion is <b>contrary to Holy Scripture</b> [...]<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His most glorious Mother, ever Virgin Mary, [...]<br /><br />We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of <b>having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—</b>that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been <b>declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture</b> and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, <b>you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies</b> and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />End quote.<br /><br />Pretty powerful. The Catholic apologists tend to not draw your attention to this (many of them have probably not read it) and instead just focus on Galileo being accused as "suspected of heresy". As you can see, it goes much deeper than that. I was shocked myself the first time I read it.Albinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569576207090703708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-375785203943730272021-06-17T05:33:18.487-07:002021-06-17T05:33:18.487-07:00Talmid
Around 1822 some Priest petitioned the Hol...Talmid<br /><br />Around 1822 some Priest petitioned the Holy Office to teach the Heliocentric view as a fact no just as a theory. After Galileo's death the Church relaxed the prohibition on teaching the heliocentric view. It was permitted to teach it as a possible theory of the movement of the Earth. Thus Albinus's claims it is "traditional doctrine" are clearly false. As per my analogy Bellermine could not entertain the Theory Jesus was not really the Incarnate Word of God like he could the Heliocentric view. Just like the Church couldn't allows Catholics to teach Arianism as a theory as that would still be heresy.<br /><br />He is just plain wrong.<br /><br />But it would take centuries for science to actually prove the Earth moved.<br /><br />Galileo didn't prove it. He was a ponce. He was over rated. He guessed correctly nothing more. Ask Michael Flynn sometime. None of his arguments for the movement of the Earth are scientifically valid.<br /><br />In 1824 the Holy Office said Catholics could teach the heliocentric view as a fact.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16681665339392303162021-06-16T21:45:19.629-07:002021-06-16T21:45:19.629-07:00"1824 was the Church allowing people to belie..."1824 was the Church allowing people to believe what had already been condemned by the Holy Office as formally heretical and contrary to Scripture! Oops."<br /><br />When did the Holy Office condemned it? If it is because the catholics back them did agree with it, that is not enough: https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-unanimous-consent-of-the-church-fathers<br /><br />Bellarmine was probably a very smart fellow, but what he thinked is not exactly dogma. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76243394552611207822021-06-16T21:34:08.732-07:002021-06-16T21:34:08.732-07:00Thanks, Son, i did look things up thanks for your ...Thanks, Son, i did look things up thanks for your tip and now i think i got the concept of Unanimous Consent. Probably very few passages pass the test, and yea, yec does not pass.<br /><br />Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.com