Author Topic: What I believe  (Read 835 times)

Rubecorks

Re: What I believe
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2017, 04:48:05 PM »
I thought the necessary matter for pope was:  Catholic man.  Am I wrong?

Yes, the necessary condition, prerequisite or qualification for being pope is being a Catholic man. In this sentence "pope" always means formally, which is implied because a man who is pope materially is NOT a pope.

Where do you get the terminology, "necessary matter for pope"?  No previously approved Catholic book would use that terminology unless it were meant as I related above. That is, no Catholic book would be using it in contradistinction to "form" without explaining what the form was.
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: What I believe
« Reply #31 on: December 18, 2017, 09:49:44 AM »
I don't think it's uncouth to speak of valid "matter" for a pope, it seems pretty required when talking about Bishop Sanborn and des Lauriers' notion of a material pope, even if they invented the distinction as something allegedly significant.


I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 

Rubecorks

Re: What I believe
« Reply #32 on: December 18, 2017, 12:32:14 PM »
I don't think it's uncouth to speak of valid "matter" for a pope, it seems pretty required when talking about Bishop Sanborn and des Lauriers' notion of a material pope, even if they invented the distinction as something allegedly significant.

I think you should have come away from my last message with the idea that you can do so as long as you know what you are talking about and make it clear how you are using it.

The principles of philosophy are designed to be applied to new situations. It's the Church Herself that approved of the distinction, and desired that it be applied. The most you can say, if you don't like it, is that you think it is misapplied, and explain why you think it is misapplied.

It's really just plain arrogant for anyone who hasn't studied Church ontology to even venture to criticize the application particularly when men like Bps. Guerdard, McKenna and Sanborn have studied it and have applied it. Even worse to call it "loopy". It really just means you do not understand it, but you would rather make men like that look stupid than to admit you don't understand it.

The "matter" of a Sacrament is entirely separate from the form. Bread is just bread and doesn't contain anything spiritual. To then treat a man to be pope like he were the matter of a Sacrament only causes confusion. The reason being that a man DOES contain the spiritual, so the "form" already pertains to the man before he even become pope. That spiritual element is the divine virtue of Faith.

There really is no good reason to treat a pope as if he were a Sacrament. That itself is an invention.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, annamack

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: What I believe
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2017, 09:11:03 AM »
RC,

I find it insurmountably curious that a professional Thomist like des Lauriers came up with this idea.  The second greatest mystery of the crisis, we might say!  "Loopy" might be a bit on the colloquially rough side, but whatever adjective you want to use, there's plenty of room for disapproving ones.  Similarly wise men with familiarity of the relevant principles have criticized it for the same reasons that we're criticizing it here, though I'm sure in a more productive and clairvoyant way.
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 

Rubecorks

Re: What I believe
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2017, 03:56:58 PM »
RC,

I find it insurmountably curious that a professional Thomist like des Lauriers came up with this idea.  The second greatest mystery of the crisis, we might say!  "Loopy" might be a bit on the colloquially rough side, but whatever adjective you want to use, there's plenty of room for disapproving ones.  Similarly wise men with familiarity of the relevant principles have criticized it for the same reasons that we're criticizing it here, though I'm sure in a more productive and clairvoyant way.

Okay, so we have it now. You don't understand it personally, but are echoing what you have heard from whom you consider "wise men". Does familiarity mean they have formal training in Ontology before Vatican II?

If they "have criticized it for the same reasons" that people are criticizing it here, I haven't seen anything that looks like the principle is even understood here.

Now that I mentioned the prelates that are for it, who are the prelates, by name, you know who have given reasons against it?
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: What I believe
« Reply #35 on: December 20, 2017, 10:06:08 AM »
RC,

I find it insurmountably curious that a professional Thomist like des Lauriers came up with this idea.  The second greatest mystery of the crisis, we might say!  "Loopy" might be a bit on the colloquially rough side, but whatever adjective you want to use, there's plenty of room for disapproving ones.  Similarly wise men with familiarity of the relevant principles have criticized it for the same reasons that we're criticizing it here, though I'm sure in a more productive and clairvoyant way.

Okay, so we have it now. You don't understand it personally, but are echoing what you have heard from whom you consider "wise men". Does familiarity mean they have formal training in Ontology before Vatican II?

If they "have criticized it for the same reasons" that people are criticizing it here, I haven't seen anything that looks like the principle is even understood here.

Now that I mentioned the prelates that are for it, who are the prelates, by name, you know who have given reasons against it?

I don't think any of them are old enough to, but I didn't bring them up to make a case against the thesis, as though I don't personally understand it myself, but as a way of showing that deriding the theory is hardly something that is unique to those who know nothing about it. 
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 

Rubecorks

Re: What I believe
« Reply #36 on: December 20, 2017, 04:21:23 PM »
RC,

I find it insurmountably curious that a professional Thomist like des Lauriers came up with this idea.  The second greatest mystery of the crisis, we might say!  "Loopy" might be a bit on the colloquially rough side, but whatever adjective you want to use, there's plenty of room for disapproving ones.  Similarly wise men with familiarity of the relevant principles have criticized it for the same reasons that we're criticizing it here, though I'm sure in a more productive and clairvoyant way.

Okay, so we have it now. You don't understand it personally, but are echoing what you have heard from whom you consider "wise men". Does familiarity mean they have formal training in Ontology before Vatican II?

If they "have criticized it for the same reasons" that people are criticizing it here, I haven't seen anything that looks like the principle is even understood here.

Now that I mentioned the prelates that are for it, who are the prelates, by name, you know who have given reasons against it?

I don't think any of them are old enough to, but I didn't bring them up to make a case against the thesis, as though I don't personally understand it myself, but as a way of showing that deriding the theory is hardly something that is unique to those who know nothing about it.

Let me know the name of two of these alleged wise men. So far, if you presented their reasons here, it only shows they don't understand it.
 

2Vermont

Re: What I believe
« Reply #37 on: December 21, 2017, 07:01:36 AM »
I thought the necessary matter for pope was:  Catholic man.  Am I wrong?

Yes, the necessary condition, prerequisite or qualification for being pope is being a Catholic man. In this sentence "pope" always means formally, which is implied because a man who is pope materially is NOT a pope.

Where do you get the terminology, "necessary matter for pope"?  No previously approved Catholic book would use that terminology unless it were meant as I related above. That is, no Catholic book would be using it in contradistinction to "form" without explaining what the form was.

Sorry I never responded to this.  It was my way of distinguishing form and matter.  It seems that TT was focusing on the "form" rather than the "matter".  Then again, we aren't speaking of sacraments, so I'm not sure whether any of those terms are even appropriate.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

TKGS

Re: What I believe
« Reply #38 on: December 21, 2017, 04:52:43 PM »
Good timing - I read most of the second part of Sede Vacante! a few months ago and found some aspects surprisingly cogent.

His central claim - that the wording of Lumen gentium created a new church which the Catholic Church merely "subsists in" - is utterly demolished by the fact that the words "subsistit in" were originally intended to have an orthodox meaning;

I'm not sure you read Mr. Ruby's book very closely.  Some (maybe even many) bishops intended the words to have an orthodox meaning, but many others clearly did not and, in any case, the term simply didn't have an orthodox meaning at the time nor does it have an orthodox meaning now. 

Not even the Church can simply declare the meaning of words to mean what they plainly do not.  The bishops are not a collection of Humpty Dumpties.

Quote
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”