Slideshow? Wow. Getting high-tech.

“And They Were Both Naked … and Were Not Ashamed”: The Nude as the Highest Material Object of the Visual Art.
OH SNAP

Escalante: The next step will be a thesis on usury and the Loonie.

I think if Tim Horton's and the Toonie make an appearance in a thesis title, it will be time for a scouring of the shire.

Really, do you have a graph? Also, TAC almost comes close to studying the volume of St. Thomas' work as Christendom theology students, not to mention... Ah, congratulations. TAC is wonderful.

I said "required" in the status, but I'm not even sure that I need to.
There may be theology majors in a precious few non-religious institutions who read as much St. Thomas, but we'd still be up there. As to Aristotle, however - I'd be willing to bet that almost no major anywhere reads as much Aristotle, and as slowly.

Christendom theology students study a greater volume of St. Thomas in the context of a greater range of the Church's Magisterium. So it is both quantity and quality. It is too bad no one at TAC is talking or writing about this yet, when some of its tutors are pushing questionable theories of evolution.

What do you mean by in context? And I guess I should clarify my "quality" was a tease.

Those are specified Theology students not all Christendom students, which is the distinction that was being made I do believe.

Well, not when they get out of the nest. One hopes. But that's partly my job online, which is why I am regarded as a LEEBEARELLE.

What I love most about all the titles is how wide sweeping they are. I mean, just let that one above sink in. HAH. But this is precisely what is needed in the fractured world in which we live, at least at the start. They will never deliver on their promise in these grandiose titles but letting them try without dying the death of a thousand footnotes is good stuff.
So long as they then get out and get particular and keep learning and realize they didn't actually solve the problem.

By context we mean studying St. Thomas in the context of the fullness of the deposit of the Faith, and not the other way around. This would be very good to try more of at TAC, to help some of the theological theses to not drift so far into the speculative weeds and weirdness. I repeat that Christendom theology majors are required to read more Thomas and Church theology, so the claim is silly, and only underscores the hubris of TAC.

"Hello-oh-oh-oh: An Examination of the Relationship Between Relaxed Admissions Standards at Small Catholic Colleges and the Desire to Count Hours of Aquinas Read During College and Then Argue About Who Has Read More."

By fullness of the Faith, we mean the full deposit of divine revelation, as handed down by the Church, not just some of it, and out of context. We mean divine revelation, not just natural revelation, and we mean sacred theology, not just metaphysics. This is the Faith that perfects reason, and this is the only Faith that perfects reason. That you do not really understand this is telling of the kind of education you have been indoctrinated into at TAC.

Aaron Gigliotti: the failure to launch business is also a matter of social circles. Those who got out quickly are already out and doing. But it's hard for any real liberal arts grads to crack the nut of the world out there, and for good reason. Basically the top students at these institutions are as good as anywhere, but it drops off quickly after that.
And let's not pretend that those who are quick to launch at other places are always happy ten years down the line, when they often come crashing back to earth.
But our circles deserve all the ridicule you give them.

I love the Pasadena title above.
So, what are you doing with all this knowledge you think you have? "I'm a janitor right now. I feel alienated from the modern world."
$%^#%&

I'll zoom out from your words "not even close" until I cannot see them anymore. I will pray for you, my brother in Christ.

It's just a simple statement of fact - the place has no electives, so everyone takes the same courses, and thus they require more St. Thomas and Aristotle than everyone else. But if you want to present evidence by combing through the curriculum that theology majors somewhere else read/study the same amount of text be my guest. It's not a claim of ultimate superiority. Just a cool aspect of TAC.

I wish I could burn all the copies of my thesis, not just the one. I sent out with a very ambitious topic, but produced the most boring paper ever written.

which is acceptable at that age

I felt like it was a failure of nerve and a retreat into scholastic nonsense at the end. But yes, I was only 22.

It's a simple false statement of hubris.

"What I can write to get hired as a tutor because I have debt and can't get a real job."

"We wanted our students to go out and change the world. We didn't realize that the world was Santa Paula." -- Marcus Berquist

But the former President of one of the St. Johns Colleges told me that he was envious of TAC grads for the way in which they were far more active in society than SJC grads. True story.

"Jerkibus Maximus: how hiding your meaning behind latin helps reveal the personality of TAC."

"hiding your meaning behind latin" - says "Peregrine Bonaventure."

Arrogant alum.

Take it back, Herreid! Nothing is almost as good as reading "Lucky Jim"!

Time for some madrigals.

No sacred theology. No online courses. No plexi-glass backboards.

I've tried to be patient with you several times, Peregrine, but it actually seems pretty ludicrous to me for you to go on about TACers talking themselves up, hiding behind language, exaggerating, and being arrogant.
How about this for an example of caring excessively about TAC's reputation: savagely attacking TAC and most everyone associated with it on close to every FB thread I've ever seen you participate in.
And now that I've gone and looked up just what one might mean by "theo-narcissism" I see that this use of language to talk about "at least half of what's taught there" is a fairly incredible exaggeration.
I don't think the place is perfect. I think it has some serious difficulties, especially as it loses the leadership of its founders and attempts to continue to grow and sort itself out. Can we just relax and talk somewhat playfully and joyfully about this various and ramshackle attempt that all of us broken human beings (particularly those of us who are united by the Catholic faith, from whatever school) are making to reach our eternal savior?

See, Liam, at Christendom they teach people to greet the brethren with a holy kiss...I mean, a criterion in hand and the spleen to apply it!

Here's a tip, Peregrine. Google "liam collins commencement thomas aquinas", then do a page search on his speech for "devotion to the teaching Church". We have a winner! Looks like there is a secret conspiracy among the students to care about the Church, because we already know infallibly that the College doesn't.

And let's never forget the importance of including sacred theology in a curriculum.

Dang, never knew that one had to include every aspect of the Catholic Church in a commencement address to be considered a faithful Catholic. Liam, I don't envy you.

Peregrine is mistaken:
http://www.christendom.edu/academics/reading-list.php
Christendom College | Undergraduate Reading List
www.christendom.edu
ENGL 101: Literature of Western Civilization IThe IliadThe Odyssey Poetics Antig...See More

peruse the reading list, and stand firm by your claim, and the 8 most hated words in the English language

"let's go through the text line by line"

I heard that at Christendom you can't receive communion unless you swear on a Bible wrapped in the Confederate flag that Abraham Lincoln was an evil man.

I heard at Christendom, you can't give a commencement speech without using "magisterium" 47 times

Does anyone know where Mr. Bonaventure can find a good grinder for his ax?

well, I find this all amusing, gentlemen, but I need to log off and work on finding a house to share with other guys who still haven't found a job with their education. I'll try to spend ten or twenty years verifying that they're really Catholic while I'm at it.

Where are you looking Liam Collins?

I'm about to start classes at WSU in aerospace engineering.

I would find it troublesome hiring someone who went to a college whose alum seem to collectively boast that no other place comes close to reading the Thomas that they do. That's just messed up.

That's usually the top question when hiring at most jobs. "How did your college read Thomas Aquinas?"

Most firms have no problem hiring someone who believes that they went to the most Catholic College in America. Catholics are cool. But TACers, in hiring circles, are seen as believing they are the best Aristotelean-Thomists and that this is the best kind of Catholic. This bizarre falsehood is a disservice on many levels. But we live in a free country and you can behave this way if you wish. Don't say I didn't try to tell you.

Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S0191886914000324
Trolls just want to have fun
www.sciencedirect.com

Yes, of course, TACers are pre-eminent. That goes without saying. There, are you happy now?

love the slideshow, btw. thanks for sharing!

I think it's rather lenient, all things considered.

Matt, you are free to back up your claim that TAC is generating the best Catholic thinkers and/or simply the best thinkers... But you never seem to able to, despite your amazingly arrogant claims. That's the issue. It's an issue because it bears on Catholic thought. Best regards.

What are you claiming, then, Matt? Are you claiming that no other College in America comes close to reading as much Aristotle and Thomas as students do at TAC, and that this is good for a Catholic college? And that this claim is "arrogant"?

The best Catholic thinkers come from Yale. Just ask Elliot Milco

And Sex Week will enter this convo in 3, 2, 1...

I heard Elliot Milco thinks that William F. Buckley is the greatest Catholic thinker of our time, so maybe you are right, Kevin Gallagher.

^I see what you did there^

you absolutely OOOOOOOZe charity

I think they should send them to Christendom, where Magisterium they can learn magisterium how to think magisterium critically but still be magisterium faithful to the ...... the..... teaching authority of the Church

bwahahahaha

I am a jerk
TAC produced me
therefore, etc. QED

Honestly, I think if you just go and read the original post again, you might be enlightened as to claims made or, as in this case, claims not made.

What's your definition of Sacred Theology?? And how can you claim it doesn't teach the Faith?

Peregrine Bonaventure: you have made me defend my alma mater today, which is not something I am in the habit of doing, and for this, I thank you.
The status is kinda jokey: "weep for your ignorance/pray for my arrogance" had a nice over the top ring to it. This isn't entirely serious stuff. If it was entirely serious, I would have some serious issues. But that should be obvious.
The claim, of course, simply stands as true until you put some evidence where your mouth is.

Peregrine, can I call you Scott? I like Scott better. Are you on the spectrum?

well the entire East Coast has us beat.

An investigation of unity and complexity...tasty enterprise.

(and it's not "Bethea" it's Beitia. I know you do it on purpose. Are you sure you're not on the spectrum?)

<munches popcorn>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
Play Video
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

My goodness what an attractive class.

I love the habit of publishing the senior theses' titles. Congrats to the class of '14.
Funny thing: My title was *ahem* edited for the newsletter.

Beckwith Three words: Wyoming Catholic College

^satire?

We may be totally non-Catholic, but at least we can recognize satire when we see it!

Who's Attila the Hun? I went to TAC so I have zero knowledge of history

Blah-blah-blah... It's funny how the Founding Fathers of America realized the importance of the citizenry being able to live under a Constitution that could be Amended. They realized their human weakness; but the founders of a College set their charter in stone because they presumed themselves to be perfect. Needless to say, the graduates of TAC are doing an excellent job of cementing its reputation of being a hot bed of arrogant jerks who argue like women, and women who argue like men.

Andrews You say "argue like a woman" as if it were a bad thing.

You're not doing your Alma Mater's reputation any favors yourself....

look, I'm willing to grant that McArthur, Berquist, and Neumayr were incredibly brazen. I'm not sure that TAC did deliver to me on all, or even a lot of what I took it to be promising. And I think it is possible there to come away confused about what is Catholicism and what is pagan philosophy, and where the two meet.
But it was and is a wonderful place, full of kind, prayerful people, who love Jesus Christ. I learned valuable things there, struggled with real questions there, and I am grateful to the founders and to everyone else who has made it to be.
And I just can't see any reason for all of us, who do share the Mass, the Sacraments, allegiance to Rome, belief that Christ was God and that his teachings, as contained in both Scripture and tradition, will guide us to heaven, to be anything but friends.

Soul face

So...just speaking as a non-TAC grad here, I want to say that I think TAC is a fantastic institution, which has produced some really wonderful people (for the record, I'd say the same for WCC or for Christendom). Yes, in some rare instances, I have met TACers who are not so nice, but in those cases, I would blame their own personal choices rather than their teachers or the institution--just as I sincerely hope that nobody thinks ill of my own alma maters simply because of my own personal defects. Ignore the trolls, and keep up the good work, in humility and charity...

Am I the only one who reads these every year and thinks that a good number of them are just a little over the top? I mean, God bless TAC and all who dwell there, but come on! It is hard to read a lot of these with a straight face. I still think TAC is the best college ever, but the thesis titles are so often... silly. (Bracing for backlash)

Part of the fun was making silly titles

Lauren, I had the hardest time coming up with a title I liked, but I didn't spend too much time on that problem because my thesis itself was very unsatisfactory so who gives a crap about he title? I think I ended up with "In Virtue of What do We Call Love of God 'Love'?" I still wince thinking about how badly I botched that topic.

I'm just thinking about my sister's recent microbiology PhD dissertation at Carnegie Mellon. There was nothing whimsical or wistful or lilting or far-reaching or punny in her title. I'm not even sure it was technically English, but it sounded quite sciency and straightforward.

Mr. Bonaventure - while I retain some small admiration for your sheer stubbornness in the cry of 'hubris', your comments have now plunged clearly into bare insult, and do your position no credit.
I realize that this is the internet and all that, but I would wager that your Christian vocabulary + trollish behavior on this thread tend to engender a strong sense of disgust in the average reader.
At the very least, when you throw out phrases like, "I will pray for you, my brother in Christ"... well, let's just rip a line here, and say that I do not think it means what you think it means.

that actually is how steubenville gets all its applicants

Man, if you've drawn Michael Grumbine out of the woodwork, you *know* you have stepped over the line.

Katie - mine was quite edited as well!

Just finished teaching my first day of classes this year. This comment thread was perfect Friday fodder for a gin and tonic! Thanks, everyone - with a special shout out to Peregrine and Matthew! . . . still chuckling . . .

The guys who started TAC were extreme intransigents on a wide range of false opinion, from the question of unalienable rights to the relationship between Faith and reason, to the relationship between St. Thomas and the Church, to the human person, to the nature of the human will and the imagination, and so much more. TAC is a backwater. An idolatry. Because of its arrogance, which it holds as a virtue, and because of its incomplete presentation of the Faith, it leads to a truncated exercise of reason, and its students are often grossly offensive.
I thank Holy Mother the Church and Her Sacraments for my spiritual and academic formation.

Does anyone have a recording of the mid-day report in which Dirk Kennedy or Michael D Byrne or someone called up the Christendom admissions office?

I still don't get this incomplete presentation of the faith thing. Church fathers, doctors, scripture, Mass 4x a day, confession before and after each mass, daily Eucharist Adoration, 2 League of Mary Praesedium, evening consecrations, daily Rosary, a Jesuit and. Dominican on campus at the same time! Again not to mention the religious that have come out of TAC (percentage wise and just even respected around the globe wise). And all those things are the daily/weekly organized Faith formation opportunities.

Bethea, you do not have the authority to make such "judgements" -- which only underscore the ill-formation of your alma mater, as do your arrogant remarks which are not arguments. On the issue of Faith, TAC does not instruct Sacred Theology in its fullness, but under a guise not only that it does, but does so in a pre-eminent manner. Many Catholic institutions participate in Mass, but without such false claims. I hope you can see how this answers your question.

This is still going on because TAC is unable to defend the "principles" on which it was founded.

Andrews you do not have the authority to make such "judgements"..........your arrogant remarks which are not arguments.
**********************************************************************
Self awareness is your friend.

So practically speaking what does that look like? Not A partial set, so does that mean all of the divine revelations of Christ through the ages?

Faith perfecting reason...aside from being disillusioned to think that that was always the emphasis I also thought that's what made us not go crazy and all become depressed sophomore year with Augustine and Predestination! (Well that and the exercise of Faith through the Sacraments etc)

It means presenting the relationship between Faith and reason in proper manner and context, so that sacred or divine revelation and Faith, in our academic formation as Catholics, is the perfection of reason; not the other way around. Faith is the perfection of reason. The science of Faith is sacred theology. The content of sacred theology is revelation, in the deposit of the Faith... in what the Church teaches, in its dogma and in Scripture. So this is the shape of Catholic education. Faith perfecting reason. TAC does not go this way. It does the opposite. Maybe not in the sacramental life of the students, but certainly in the curriculum. It lays out a basis of natural theology, which is a rational metaphysics, as the perfection of Faith.
And I was not aware of this kind of discrimination at Christendom College. I know Protestant and Evangelical Christians who have gone there.

Nina, the Church has been teaching all things relating to Faith and Reason in this way for centuries. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, a few guys got together and over-reacted to some bad things that were going on in the world, and this was the birth of TAC, where they presume that supernatural Faith can be perfected by reason and natural theology.

I do not disbelieve you, and I am sorry to hear that. Perhaps you were being interviewed by a bad apple?

"Peregrine", do you realize that you are like someone giving a book review of a book they didn't read? And that someone who has read the book can tell you didn't read it? That's what these threads with you are always like.

again with the "Bethea". who the hell is that person? see, I use my REAL name, so I would appreciate the consideration to SPELL it correctly

I don't think "Reason perfecting Faith" is the correct way to view the TAC venture, but rather "Reason illuminating and supporting Faith."

Well, Nina, that is a subtle nuance, but the thing is, Faith perfects reason. Reason does not illuminate the Faith or support the Faith. Faith is reasonable, and Faith perfects reason.
And I always thought Bethea was illuminati. TAC gives that impression.

I invite you to take a good look at past years of TAC thesis titles besides this, and you will see that there are a number of students who have written on this exact topic. I can think of at least one in my own class (2010) and I am sure there have been others.

without the magisterium however. (I beat Scott to the punch)

Peregrine, after reading your comments here, I have six friends who have decided to convert to Catholicism and immediately apply to Christendom. You are a wonderful ambassador for the faith. Now, kindly step away from the keyboard and answer your door. Do whatever the nice men in the white jackets tell you.

Let's not do the TAC vs. Cdom thing!! They can both stand on their own merits.

don't bother. this drum-beating is two years old.

endless repetition isn't "resting" Scott

it's more of a Nietzschean "eternal return of the same"

Off to do an errand, have fun kids...

His name is Scott

Oh Nina! You just added another reading that I had forgotten about!! (Must be because it got lost in seminar!) Does it count that I had a Dominican priest co-lead my already awesome senior Theology classes on the Sacraments? Does that make the context better?

I'm sorry you can't spell. Or be coherent.

Wow...ouch...a lot of these comments are real encouraging to someone who's going back to TAC in a week to start Junior year...

there is a time for argument, and a time for the club. the time for argument has long passed

"By its own essential character, theology completes and perfects the intellectual life of a free man, for it has in a pre-eminent way that which is desired in all of them. Liberal education undertaken by Christians and ordered to theology turns out to be liberal education in its fullness."
--Founding Document of Thomas Aquinas College

Mr. Adrw Lng, the passage you cite is lip service. The use the word "theology" in the passage you cite effectively translates into "natural theology" in the TAC curriculum. Moreover, at no point in its curriculum, does TAC actually teach its students what Catholic theology really means or is, hence it does it accurately teach what the relationship between faith and reason is. This is manifestly obvious.
Bethea, you are a thug.

4-0-0 S C T A C (you'll have to imagine the gang signs) Matthew J. Peterson can demonstrate

I'm glad we both agree on that

So, TAC is not able to address the concern in its curriculum. It hides its head in the sand. The concern is that it misrepresents Catholic theology, which undercuts the principle of Faith perfecting reason, and supports intellectual hubris.
Witness Beithea.

Thug.

What makes it true is a reference to clubbing as opposed to simply addressing a valid concern.
Again, the concern is that the TAC curriculum does not portray Sacred Theology correctly, but replaces it with natural theology.

Your comment is ridiculous.

OK, this is really a joke.

FIN?
See Translation

Oh my.

" it's more of a Nietzschean "eternal return of the same"
Or Heraclitus, "The dog returns to it's own vomit"

"But we Catholics must pray with each other and other Christians. Pray that the Lord gift us unity! Unity among ourselves! How will we ever have unity among Christians if we are not capable of having it among us Catholics, in the family, how many families fight and split up? Seek unity, unity builds the Church and comes from Jesus Christ. He sends us the Holy Spirit to build unity!" Pope Francis.

Erik Bootsma's photo.

And well put, Alex.

I don't think I've ever seen this many TACers agree on anything.
It's kind of like how humanity always unites in those movies where the aliens invade.

I flash that every time I go to the in law's house. Three at Christendom now.

a conversation about the ratio studiorum of the program, and the role of sacred theology therein, would also be worth having (again, only if untroubled)

I think Inigo had the last word apparently.

Personally, I think Peregrine Bonaventure, Scott Weinburg, Jonathan Scott, or whatever his real name may be, might have a good point. Unfortunately, it's so buried under the way he expresses it, almost no one will ever see it.

I agree, the sky-diving Aristotle thesis sounds great! "Boady, this is your F#@%ing wake up call, man. I am a PHILOSOPHER!"

Despite JA Escalante's scoffing above (as in way above), some TAC theses have been really good, more than fulfilling the promise of their titles. I would like to edit a volume of some of the best. Can everyone nominate some of their favorites? I'll go first (not using the titles, which I can't remember):
Peter Kay on Shakespeare's political thought,
Joseph Bolin on Vocation,
Rachel Berquist on the Filioque,
Another Berquist girl on the politics of medieval Spain,
Joe Zepeda on the Song of Songs,
Henry Zepeda on Cartesian Geometry,
Joe Kenny on "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Catherine Joliat Feil on Aristotle's Politics,
Catherine Ryland on hospitality,
David Isaac on music,
and (without false modesty) Pater Edmund on monarchy... lots more that I'll add when I think of them...

Pater Edmund: Jeff Froula on the certainty of hope, and Katie Duda on Dante's Paradiso as an icon. I imagine your father's was pretty good! What did he write on?

Joe, my father wrote on Balthasar's aesthetics, but I'm afraid I haven't read his thesis. My mother tells me that it was "too long."

Unrelated fact about my father: his high-school senior Matura thing was "The poetry of Hölderlin, Rilke and Trakl in the literary criticism of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Romano Guardini."

Can we still get old theses from TAC? Has anyone done that lately?

Let's keep going, we can't quit before getting to a nice perfect number 300, can we?

I accidentally liked a dozen comments signed in as my husband. Friend me, Peterson! I was dangerously close to missing this thread entirely.

Yes, I forgot about Elizabeth Quack's thesis - really excellent.

Being the 300th comment! Oh ya!

Joe, do you get these sent to you, or did you have a personal connection to these?

And here it is: https://docs.google.com/.../0BxhNFgNx8xzUUHJlazdC.../edit...
Brideshead Thesis.pdf - Google Drive
docs.google.com

Peter Knuffke on transcendentals.

Also, on the subject of Brideshead. and in no way diminishing Elizabeth Quackenbush's thesis for which she is so rightly praised, there is also Pat Dolan's wonderful exploration of the motif of the pastoral poetry tradition in Brideshead. I have a paper copy and I reread it when I want to be reminded that my class is really smart and stuff.

Oh snap, I remember that one.

No one should forget Alex Wiseman's brilliant thesis on Kepler.

Oh, and for good measure:
TAC is the best and I am the best!!!
USA! USA! USA!

"There Are But Three Novels: How Reading Authors Other Than Waugh, O'Connor, and Undset Marks One as Insufficiently Catholic."

Kevin Kasson wrote a pretty cool one. And I personally learned a lot from Margaret Ryland's. Michael Masteller's was huge as well.

my defense was standing room only, but the thesis was crap and the defense worse

What was the thesis of your thesis, Liam? Also, I've heard the tutors were quite impressed with Louise Milton's thesis on Goethe's Faust.

Also, Philip D. Knuffke's thesis on imagination as the cause of error and David Freer's thesis on predestination were quite good.

I haven't enjoyed a thread this much in a very, very long time. Thank you all. And I have to say, I think the current prez of Cdom (whom I'm fortunate to refer to, viz a viz my marriage, as "Uncle Tim") would be mortified to find that our friendly neighborhood troll associates so closely with that otherwise fine institution.

I'm always slightly confused when people talk about the world around us being fundamentally historical. Is that to say you cannot understand the kinds of things you find in it without studying its history? Or is it to say that the easiest access we have to those things is through history, or is it merely a claim about understanding human society.

Edward , are you trying to start another discussion within this crazy place? This is when an administrator of a discussion forum would start a new thread. Then again... We probably would have all be kicked off the site by now too!

which I would be happy to hear, but I'm going to pick my poison after dashing off to dinner right now...

I learned all the pickup lines and skipped the Thomism. Then I went to seminary. I MAY HAVE DONE THIS WRONG

"Dr. Ronald McArthur, the first president of Thomas Aquinas College in California passed away on the morning of October 17, 2013. Like Christendom’s founder, Dr. Warren Carroll, McArthur was a pioneer in the renewal of faithful Catholic higher education in America. McArthur was awarded Christendom College’s Pro Deo et Patria Medal for Distinguished Service to Church and Nation in 2007 during Christendom’s 30th Anniversary Convocation.
'He was a great friend of Christendom College and supporter of the work we are doing here,' Christendom College president Dr. Timothy O’Donnell said. 'He has gone on to his eternal reward and we ask that you please pray for the repose of his soul and for the comfort of his family. He was a dear friend and will be missed.'
Eternal rest grant unto Dr. Ronald McArthur, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen."
http://www.christendom.edu/news/2013/10-17-mcarthur.php
College Mourns the Loss of Dr. Ronald McArthur
www.christendom.edu
“He was a great friend of Christendom College and supporter of the work we are d...See More

You know, I really do think that this thread is what happens when someone who knows nobody is going to agree with him has a psychological inability not to try for the last word.

Speaking of Dr. McArthur, I recently lost all my prayer cards that were in a missal... Does anyone that had him for senior theology have time to type up the prayer of St Thomas Aquinas that the saint would say after consecration? I know McArthur handed them out to all his theology students. (Oh Godhead hid, devoutly I adore thee, who truly art within these forms before me, to thee my heart I bow with bended knee... Etc)

Have you even read question one of the prima pars? If you did, you wouldn't make such a completely idiotic statement.

Sweet honey on the rock! The Peregrine troll again?
Will this thread never end?

Let's change the subject.
Is it true that the goat-stag tastes like chicken?

If you understood Catholic theology, Edward Langley, and the Faith, you would understand that the first part of the Summa is not the source or set of the principle data of sacred theology. TAC clearly produces arrogant goats, who would rather dodge real issues with obfuscations and false attacks, instead of addressing the fundamental flaw of its curriculum, which results in a kind of blunted and arrogant reason that is incompatible with genuine Faith.

Come on, Scott, you know that's not what he said. He was pointing out that your characterization of TAC is straightforwardly wrong. The first part of the Summa is very clear that theology "proceeds from assent to divinely revealed truths, not reason" - and TAC takes St. Thomas to be right about that. Therefore your characterization is wrong. That's all there was to it. [Notice the absence of any premise asserting that the Summa is the "source or principal set of data of sacred theology".] I probably should follow my own advice and not respond at all ... oh well.

Joe Zepeda Matthew J. Peterson If Aristotle and Batman got in a fight, who would win?

This thread should go on forever! Seriously!
Let's see how long we can make it.

Jason, that's a silly question. The real question would be if Aristotle and Batman got in a friendship based upon mutual concern for the polis, would it be a true friendship? (Second question: would Aristotle find Batman's relationship with Robin a little weird?)
I am The Walrus.

This whole "all" of Sacred Theology seems like it would take longer than the life of the earth to accomplish.

Reading "the most Aristotle and St. Thomas" is not the measure of the most excellent Catholic thinker, student or theologian. Get it?

I only read St Augustine and Batman.

Blackwell For The Peregrine.
Margaret Grimm Blackwell's photo.

Self-referential, echo-chamber, non-critical, idiocy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlmc8HpkI4
Play Video
JOAN BAEZ ~ I Dreamed I Saw St Augustine ~
Joan Baez ~ I DREAMED I SAW SAINT AUGUSTINE ~ The significance of this song is t...See More

All/some. Whole/part. These are fairly basic concepts. If you do not grasp the idea of the fullness of the Catholic Faith, in its revealed principles, this might explain how someone might write a thesis about how God is revealed in all Christians or in all things knowable.

Tom Sundaram Tell us abut Dante.

No, tell us ALL about Dante

Okay. So he saw a woman. But not just any woman. She was Beatrice, and he fell in love. Now, normally you or I, if we fell for someone, might write...what? Can anyone give me examples?

You know, I was just going to say "dirty limericks" if nobody said anything.

Going to bed. (Past 1 am in Estonia). Can't wait to see how long this thread gets by the time I wake up!

So Dante set out to write BETTER poetry. A poem to span the ages, which settled for no theme less than the Love that moves the Sun and the other stars, in adoration of the Trinity and in veneration of his own, sainted Beatrice.

We need a sign up sheet to keep this thread going. Like Perpetual Adoration.

Off to bed! Keep it up!

When he had finished these, he set out to depict nothing less than the poetic exposition of the cosmic character of the Eucharist as the Incarnational mode of communion with the Trinitarian life. But to do this he had to illustrate precisely the highest mode by which we can relate to God as being simply the being of God Himself - Love. And he wanted to display, by his pen, the enduring and primary truth about creation - that the order of the existence of all things is not a rigorous necessity, as though God had to create us just so according to a rigid and immutable a priori law (Inferno - "He broke the rigid sentence from above") or its seeming abandonment (Purgatorio) but according to His truly immutable Will, which in its immutability captures the purpose of all mutability.

In doing this, he realized that the only epistemological mode of truly accessing this mystery was the Beatific Vision of God Himself, especially the Person of Christ. So to do this, he had to depict nothing less than a poetic inroad into that super-knowable knowledge. Hence, the conclusion of his Paradiso, in which the entire symphonic order of the other two Books finds its climax and fruition.

Poor answer Scott. Poor answer. What is theology then, if you wont tell me what "all of sacred theology" is, at least you can tell me what it is in it's essence.

Dude. I logged off of the Book of Faces for days...AND IT'S ALIVE!

Yeah, but you can't use sticks on Facebook.

AMERICA, HECK YEAH

What is theology if not the fullness of the Faith, and what is the fullness if only St. Thomas. I wish he were the Pope today, but God's providence seems to be otherwise.

Mr. (Scott) Peregeine (Weinberg) Bonaventure: Did you go to Christendom?

But it isn't indoctrination and that sounds like what Mr Bonadventure is pushing for.

Oh, sure, it's not raw catechesis, which he apparently thinks is something people should be getting in college, instead of even before 8th grade when most people today get it. It's the actual study of theology, which, contra illam troglodytam, involves philosophy as an ancillary discipline.

I'm just really curious about Mr. Weinberg's past now. What happened to him? Why does he hate TAC so much?
Much more interesting than anything he wants to talk about...

Shortly after leaving TAC I took a senior elective at a local seminary on Thomistic Ethics. I was actually surprised at how good the prep at TAC was for something like that, and I could hold my own with guys who had already been through 3-4 years of training for the priesthood.

If nothing else, it gives you a great prep just for grasping ideas in general and putting them into a logical framework. I slid into a job in journalism and it was great to be able to detect all the sophistry under the rocks

You are crazed and drunken sports fans, cheering for a particular team. You call your team the greatest. Then you mistake your team for the sport itself.

sec let me get my cheerleading outfit

as far as the "sports fan" thang goes, lots of us met our spouses at TAC some of us converted and found the faith at TAC, and none of us are unchanged by that experience, for good or ill.
That having been said, Scott, yo momma's fat

420

Peregrine Bonaventure even has Michael Beitia defending his alma mater and has single handed lay kept this thread up this far and this long.
Truly you deserve an award. You are no longer a troll - you have achieved the level of the - of the -something even more - the level of a comment *Dragon*.

but it's a douchey dragon, isn't it, Matthew? not just a regular dragon...

Premise 1: A Catholic college should teach the fulness of the faith; Premise 2: the fulness of the faith can't fit into an undergraduate curriculum; Conclusion: No college is Catholic.

"TAC clearly produces arrogant goats..." I'd like to address this frankly childish, almost fart-like emittance from Peregrine.
Your unjust appellation of this particular graduate of TAC might well be correct, Mr. Bonaventure. But in my case, it's an accident of birth. You, sir, are clearly a self-made man.

And let's be fair mr Benedict. It's a goatSTAG!!! C'mon people.

The whole "teaching the whole of theology" thing reminds me of a quote from Ephesians 1 that the Church prays in the Liturgy each week:
"God has given us the wisdom to understand fully the mystery, the plan he was pleased to decree in Christ."
FULLY! Any thoughts on what this means? Someone actually asked me about this the last time I was at TAC. Great question.

oh, Matthew, I've never defended TAC period. nor will I. I just attack Scott.
His momma so fat that when she sits around the house, she sits AROUND the house

I got my MA in Theology/Catechetics at FUS. When I met with the department chair, although on paper I "needed" about 7 pre-requisites to enter the program, he said that since I went to TAC he was waiving the pre-requisites. And I pulled off a Summa Cum Laude. (While mother of 6 children...). I now work as Theology Dept. Chair at an Archdiocesan pre-k through 12. All that to say TAC was lousy preparation....

It really was a great preparation!

lastly, Peterson (for now) we need video of S C T A C 400

whaaaaaaat is going on here

444 w00t!

Christendom has produced some great senior theses too. For example Dane Joseph Weber on intellectual property: http://dane.weber.org/concept/thesis.html

I still think, as I said then, that the response that Peregrine Bonaventure always brings forth is a sign that his complaints sometimes hit close to nerves or some unclear areas for many and are not mere trolling.

I stumbled across this thread last night just before I went to bed. It accounted for my crazy dream of returning to campus and going class with Mr. Berquist (may he RIP), where the opening prayer had been changed. I've heard TAC accused of many things--producing arrogant graduates, focusing too much on Aristotle, not incorporating this or that great work--but I've never heard it called unCatholic.

What is "unCatholic"? Does that mean you have a kind of theology that does not correspond with Catholic truth? There are many different truly Catholic theologians, and there are different theological approaches, but they all have one thing in common: they begin with an assent to the sacred truths which have been revealed and supported by the Catholic Church. They begin with the human being giving assent to these truths. They do not begin with another set of truths that the human being has reasoned to.

that's nothing compared to how he proves that sacraments exist from historical necessity.

The gentleman: "If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candor, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes."

So, TAC does not begin theology with assent to sacred truths. Though it may recognise that St. Thomas himself has taught that sacred theology begins with assent to divine revelation and the sacred teachings of the Holy Catholic Faith, though it states in its Charter than liberal education is finally subject the teaching Church, in the course of its curriculum, it does not teach or present theology in this way. But in another way...

Mr. Beitia, Thomas is NOT reasoning toward the Holy Trinity. He gives intellectual assent to revealed and sacred truth, then supports that faith with reasonable dialectic. It is assent to faith seeking and achieving understanding. It is not a reasoning in the metaphysical sense.

ubi est Peregrinus. Omnia argumenta eius deleta videntur. Certamen cum umbra. Laudandi qui umbras suas vicerunt. Thomas ne erubesceat

BINGO: you spelled my name right!
Give him a hand, folks, he can be taught

Kunz - he's a Christendom guy, I think.

Also I love that P-B is apparently immune to sarcasm, as he completely missed Beitia's.

HOWEVER!!! (and yes, I know that this argument/discussion is fruitless – but what the hell).
We study these things in order, to give a proper context to what comes (came) next, in both the progression of thought, but also progression of what formed the thought.
That is why the programs are actually integrated, not just among the other subjects, but in themselves.
So, it seems like a fairly logical thing to study theology in the following manner:
1) Sacred Scripture
2) St. Augustine (first explaining how to further understand it, and then an understanding of how Sacred Scripture exists in the world, thought, etc).
3) The Prima Pars (Summa) – the treatise on God, then the treatise on the sacraments, etc. (yes – this was written by St. Thomas Aquinas).
a. Incidentally, this is studied as it is the basis (according to the Vatican, anyways) for most of the Church(sorry, Magisterium)’s understanding of God, Sacred Theology, etc., etc.,
4) Then we study the Constitution of the Church, certain encyclicals (issued by the Magisterium, if you will) to understand various aspects of not only Theology, but also Catholic Social Thought.
I say that is seems fairly logical to study in that manner, because that is the same manner in which God's Divinely Revealed Truth has become understood to man over the centuries... Why start with the end of the book and not meet the plot, characters, twists, etc? Knowing only the way that Don Quixote's ends, without knowing how he actually got there, and the WAY that he got there would be fruitless.
But the brilliance of the integration here, is the fact that one cannot properly understand the words, terms, phrases or dare I say, SENTENCES and paragraphs in most of what St. Thomas wrote, OR St. Augustine OR Any of the other notions then studied through encyclicals, etc., if one has not first studied those that they refer to, quote and lean on to make their mark. That is to say, if one just starts straight in on the summa with a hope to one day read St. John of the Cross (make up some other example here please), one does not have any further respect, knowledge NOR understanding of either Carmelite Mysticism, NOR the Catholic Faith (nor the magisterium – just to be fair). THAT IS BECAUSE very simply, very few people are smart enough to just read the Summa and understand its meaning, let alone its nuance.
So, do students at TAC study logic and natural theology? Absofreakinlutely. Is that because the Blue Book says so? Nope. Is that because the founders think that we can reason our way to understanding God alone without the light of faith? Nope. It’s because in order to not only appreciate STA, but also have any chance of grasping straws, one must understand his vernacular, and in a certain sense – study the same way that he did.
So is logic an important part of the curriculum? So much so that it pervades almost every freshman class? It sure is! Is Aristotle that important too? Not because it’s Aristotle. It’s important because that is what follows from an understanding of Western Philosophy (I doubt they study Aristotle in the same way at St. John’s when discussing the Great Books of Eastern Thought). However, in order to give the best picture in a short period of time (4 years), there must be some tie between it all. Therefore: Pre-Socratics Socrates/Plato Aristotle Modernity Post-Modernity. Are you seeing the trend here? It’s the same in Math… Euclid Ptolemy Copernicus Kepler Descartes Leibnitz Newton Non-Euclidian Einstein (I missed some and integrated others). This studies the formation of the problem. And it leads to a full (as full) understanding of the stuff.
So – to add the last thoughts based on your (Current) last post.
“It begins with logic and philosophy and things which can be known by reasons.”
A) Covered, but I know that you see the error in complaining about this anyways, as of course you know, We learn by moving to the more known to us, to the less known and thereby towards that more known in itself. So, this makes sense.
"It uses these things as the principles of theology. It does not begin theology and Catholic education with assent, but with syllogism or -- more fairly stated -- with reason."
A) No. This isn’t how the study of Theology, nor principles of theology are studied. This is how PHILOSOPHY is studied – in order to better understand theology? Yep! But not THE study of Theology.
“This is not off the wall. If this is false, then it should be easy for the college to correct it. TAC uses metaphysics as the basis for sacred theology. It does not use assent to sacred principles. It pursues a reason illuminating faith model, which has no precedence in Catholic theology.”
A) Nope. Natural Theology? Yep. SACRED? Nope.
“TAC may argue that it does not pretend to teach all of theology. It may say it is only a starting point to further study. But the starting point itself is wrong. It leads the student to reason towards faith, instead of faith perfecting reason.”
A) AGAIN – not sure where this idea is coming from… but I think that my first paragraph deals with this as well.
But don’t take my word for it.

You're welcome (show off)

QUAESTIONEM unam propono: BOVEM MUTUM hanc lineam commendare arbitraminine?

John - just because you aren't getting many responses to your Latin statements doesn't mean that we don't understand them...

And to be fair... Knowing oneself to be correct in all instances, and stating that to be the case doesn't make one arrogant. It just makes them correct. Always and in all ways.

Ruplinger, I've seen your intelligent comments on my Dad's posts. I thought you were better than this. Who the hell do you think you are? I see you "studied porters and imperial stout at University of Dallas." Did you really just join Bonaventure in referring to the entirety of TAC graduates as arrogant bastards? Answer me this, you troglodyte - was it hard work becoming such an illiterate boor?

Whoa there. He might not be illiterate (though he seems to be acting boorish, I grant you) - and certainly there is something trollish in the way he just accused us - I want to hear his case. Really, I do. I want to hear it out in the open, where such accusations among Christians ought to be exposed to sunlight, and I want to watch him try and make his case, because, on the distant chance he is right, he can prove it like a man - and if he is wrong, he can accept censure for insulting an entire school of people.

Also, I'd really love to hear in what way I am "impotable." I hadn't realized that you could use that to describe someone, it usually referring to whether water is drinkable, and on the off chance it is literary genius instead of the more likely imbecilic nattering, I'd like to know what it means.

Tom - I think he intends it to mean "unbearable."

Matthew - granted. Quite granted. Doesn't mean some people around here don't need an expert surgeon in head-from-ass removal.

In other words, he can't stomach us.

THE ST. JEROME SMACKDOWN!! OHHHHH SNAP

I think there's plenty of cheek to go around in these parts...

But all I did was point to the one interlectual thing I like about my alma mater...

And if you die tomorrow and become a saint, will this thread stand as some kind of fourth-class digital relic of you, Matthew?

"Creator of five day long comment threads . . . Pray for us."

Tom, you should quote Jerome in Latin, otherwise the relevant parties might not understand it.

Ruplinger has no idea what hurricane he has just provoked.

"...i suspect part of his complaint which i sympathize with: 1) youre all impotable arrogant bastards 2) you dont study theology right. BY your own admissions even and tone, he is right." Would you care to explain how we have so grievously misunderstood you, sir?

I pray for their job prosoects.

I'd never say I'm not arrogant. I reject the idea that I'm somehow arrogant because I attended Thomas Aquinas College.

Also - 524.

I think that is a problem, although there is a corresponding problem with lectures: excessive passivity to the ideas of others.

I don't know the Jesuit method, perhaps a description would be helpful. I do know that the "Scholastic" method balanced lectures (lectiones) with something similar to a seminar (i.e. the disputationes). Obviously the format of the latter differed insofar as it concluded with an authority pronouncing judgment on the positions held by his students: but something like that happens in the better seminars at TAC.

I'll take a good Stone Brewing Company IPA, if you please.

Scintilating discussion. It's no surprise the TAC family of scholars pursues the question what is theology. No one else is doing this today. You need very strong reasoning skills to pursue this question today. Faith -- which is love engulfed in the substance of things hoped for -- seeking understanding.

Put a sock in it, Bonaventure.

Thanks, I love you guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBPy4tvlCwc
You Displease Me
You displease me greatly and I ignore the both of you.

This guy is the headmaster of a school? I'm shocked, shocked.

So what if he missed it? It doesn't justify anything that he came in without context when he just said bad stuff about our entire school.

I mean, yeah, I could come into a heated argument where people are being all defensive about being white and saying retaliatory stuff against an Indian guy - it wouldn't justify me canning all white people. Screw that circumstantial nonsense; if you say horrible nonsense about me, my friends and colleagues, we deserve an apology for such a stupid "joke."

I appreciate that this thread gets a soundtrack from time to time....

Futurama references are always appropriate at all times.

"Si aliqui audet dicere quod referentia ad futuramam sint aliquando non conveniens, anathema sit" -- (Council of Liberfaciei, 2008, canon xviii)

I think we should periodically resurrect this thread, just because.

I agree with Isak Benedict and Lauren Ogrodnick above--my personal vice of arrogance has little to do with where I did my undergraduate degree. I am very proud of having made it through TAC, and I am still exceedingly happy that such a place exists. I am also proud of what has happened in my life since then.
I didn't read everything in the curriculum, I didn't understand everything that I did read, and I didn't participate as much as I should have in every class, because frankly, I didn't have a brilliant mind to match many of my classmates'. If anything, I was humbled by attending TAC.
It's really irritating when some people paint all "TAC"ers with one brush, as if each person gets stamped with the same personality upon graduation, and any differences or growth beyond the degree are irrelevant. I dated one of these people for a short time--quite awkward, I must say.

Would you sketch out the principle texts you would use for a four year college curriculum that intends to teach theology? In what order would you present those texts?

Are you saying that freshman year would not involve studying anything besides theology?

Part of the questiop, then, would be should theology (as opposed to catechesis) begin with the articles of faith or should it begin with the preambles and progress to the articles, as St. Thomas does in the Summa.
None of this is to deny that the articles of Faith are the first principles of Sacred Theology. Sometimes, however, what is first "by nature" (to use a technical phrase) is not first in the pedagogical order.

The curriculum of TAC is designed to provide the various aids one needs to fruitfully begin to study theology: the reason more "Sacred Theology" is taught at TAC is probably that "the Founders" judged that most college-age students weren't ready for a formal study of theology.
After all, in the medieval schools, Sacred Theology was studied after a long, rigorous curriculum of philosophy.

"Catechesis is something entirely different" That's exactly what I was saying: should the study of the science of Theology begin with rote memorization of the articles of the Faith, or with the philosophical precursors to such a study?

Sure, but should neophytes begin by studying the Immaculate Conception?

Dude, Edward, why?
Perescott is just a beating drum

To prepare them to study theology, perhaps?

How should I go about studying the Trinity? Read the relevant encyclicals and council documents?

"You both seem incapable of arguing about this subject like mature thinkers. I am not beating a drum. I am making true statements about Catholic education and sacred theology, and pursuing a line of argumentation in support of these true statements, which you are unable to address."
Peregrine, perhaps you are stating things and arguing from them: but you are not answering my questions about your understanding of the "true statements". In fact, I think a lot of what you say is true, but I either disagree with your understanding of the truth or the implications you suppose it has. If you want to argue with us and not just pontificate at us, you should answer our questions.

Take my most recent question: If I were to study the Trinity, how should I go about it?

Edward - we did this a few months back with tutors and all - in another thread (quoted by Frater Edmund) and it gets no where. Scot (Peregrine) doesn't care to be convinced of anything. He is right and we are infidels in his mind. In fact, we are worse than infidels -- because we masquerade as Catholics.
It is impossible to change his mind. That "debate" ended with the tutor (who is eminently kind and charitable) unfriending him. There was no other solution.
My question is if Scott (aka Peregrine) hates TAC so much, why did he apply (and attend Freshman year in part) 3 or 4 times? He was in my class, and the class ahead of me, and another behind me and I believe in another years before. Perhaps this is an issue of rejecting that which rejected you -- it happens all the time in relationship break-ups.
And why did the college keep letting him back in?

Have you even read question one of the prima pars? If you did, you wouldn't make such a completely idiotic statement.

It's an obsession -- and he gets some kind of kick out of it. Do what is recommended for the treatment of tantrumming children and walk away.

I love that we're around 600 comments on this thread. Was nice to see you all... But this is nothin short of a waste of time.

I studied with some of the c'dom "professors" while doing grad & post grad studies in Rome... I assumed that they were unemployable because they were able to get Jobs at Chrystendom...

I wish you would ask yourself "Why might a bunch of educated people not want to argue with me? Why would someone who has spent at least four years of his life arguing with people who hold all sorts of strange opinions find my attitude off-putting?"

My claim is that TAC promotes St. Thomas's (and, by the way, the Church's) understanding of the relationship between faith and reason to be true. St. Thomas very explicitly claims in ST I.1 a.8: "Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God." Consequently, TAC teaches us that "theology proceeds from assent to divinely revealed truths, not from reason." Thus (a) you misrepresented TAC's position on Sacred Theology. (b) you either misunderstood or misrepresented my reply to your accusations: I never said "the Summa is the 'source or principal set of data of sacred theology'," I merely said that "TAC promotes this view and this view contradicts your claim about TAC".
Perhaps some TACers think that you can demonstrate the existence of the Holy Trinity: Personally, I've never met one. In my Senior theology class on the Trinity with Dr. MacArthur, Dr. MacArthur emphasized over and over again how the ground and source of St. Thomas's exposition of the Trinity (using the Doctors and Fathers of the Church as well as the acts of the Ecumenical Councils) is the assent of Faith to matters beyond reason's grasp.

TAC definitely teaches and emphasizes natural theology, BTW, but I've never heard anyone suggest that natural theology is complete.

"which afford more time and space for Freud and Euclid than it does for the doctors of the Church combined."
Um, Last time I checked St. Thomas was a doctor of the Church. We spend four semesters reading St. Thomas. We spend two semesters on Euclid and two or three classes on Freud.

"In addition, it does not employ this teaching as a principle in the instruction of sacred theology, but merely as a maxim."
Yes it does, in senior theology St. Thomas and the tutor emphasize the necessity of Faith.

And, I'm not sure how one could read St. Augustine and think that Sacred Theology is equivalent to natural theology.

It's not one of a fool.

Yeah, go read that response and then tell me that TACers don't try to reason with you.

First my apologies for the offense given by my rather crude remarks. In my defense, however, I point out that sometime between the initial post and my first post Peregrine blocked me (I know not why) and as I knew not the properties of such action, I was mystified that upstanding gentlemen from TAC were continuing to denigrate him (since at that time it was just a beat down and not the more recent reasoned arguments). It seemed unfair to me and the seeming display of arrogance and scorn merited some redress. I hope that's understandable. You may note that I deleted most my comments. I left, however, my only question.
Contrary to some opinion, I am very favorable to TAC though I have never met any graduates. My concerns are over the predominant method of seminar as well as the theology program (but that's a problem I likely have with any university, so it's no particular dig on TAC). Thanks to Edward, I was reminded that it is preparatory theology merely, though still the wisdom of Leo XIII's order of studies stands, which has a tradition spanning 800 years and is traceable to the Fathers of the Church. I also see the prudence of the older prescription limiting laymen in theological instruction; to put it simply they lack the evangelical councils, a necessary aid in that study which which can easily be a danger to one's own soul. Moreover, I don't regard the seminar format as suitable to such study. My own theology training was mostly unspeakably bad.
I am familiar with the seminar method myself since it was how I had learned. I may remind all that the college's patron was not known for his verbosity under St. Albert, and also that Pieper, a Thomist, reminds us that intellectus is passive, not active. Silence is a rule of St. Benedict, but also a rule of philosophy whatever school one is from (but most evident among the Pythagoreans). Certainly disputation sharpens the mind, making it capable of receiving wisdom, but wisdom does not come from within or at least not from ourselves. A loquacious soul may be clever, but is incapable of being wise.
My point of the Latin was merely to remind all that contemporary education falls far short of its precursors, but it is a failing in earlier years especially. By contemporary college age, back in the day, one had at least two ancient languages mastered, as well as literature, logic and preparatory philosophy (and for the Jesuits they had often begun teaching as well). TAC is necessarily limited in its aims due to this.
I agree with Matthew's original statement that the emphasis on Aquinas and Aristotle is TAC's strongest suit. Nevertheless, it is not nor can be some rival to the schools of old, whether ancient, Renaissance, or Medieval. Taking note of one's deficiencies which in my case are great, ought to put ourselves in a bit more modest attitude.
Finally, I do not know just how trollish Peregrine is. However, in all the vituperations at me, the sole question I asked was not acknowledged it seemed, and so I leave it.
For those interested, I strongly recommend Fr. Thomas Hughes book on Ignatian education (ca. 1900). This is my area of expertise if I have any. It requires more than one reading and some time between and a bit of pondering too; it's interesting that the author wrote to remind the Jesuits themselves how much different their schools were even at the end of the 19th century. (The Ratio Studiorum read alone leaves one with too many questions). The Jesuits, the first teaching order, can lay claim to being the summit of Christian education. It seems superior to Erasmus' plan which is more akin the origin of our own watered down fare -- and not surprisingly because he was friends with those who established the English schools that disintegrated bit by bit over the centuries.

My question is not "are we free to reject the principles of Faith . . ." it is "can the principles of Faith be put to a student in a way that he cannot reject?"
Perhaps you've been somewhere like that: somewhere that presents the Faith so clearly and coherently with teachers that are so holy that they can impress the virtue of Faith on the souls of their students. If so, I wish you'd tell us about that school, so we can learn their methods and reform TAC's curriculum accordingly.

Anyways, this is my current situation, perhaps I will return tomorrow to see your responses to our questions: http://xkcd.com/386/
xkcd: Duty Calls
xkcd.com
Warning: this comic occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors).
August 20 at 2:08am · Like · 7 · Remove Preview
John Ruplinger Of course one must ask what is Socratic dialogue first. Do tutors lead students to aporia or invite sophists to do the same? What of the many youths who silently listen as in the Lesser Hippias in which Socrates interlocuter is embarressed. How often do the youths stay quiet? Are you familiar with Quigley and John Senior (IHS)? What do you think of the dumb ox? Did you know the Jesuits were forbidden to let students take notes or use lecture notes? Things to ponder merely.

619 and still amusing.

I wonder if Perescott Wienventure can name the seven liberal arts (hint: theology isn't one of them)? and then wonder why anyone would study music or geometry at a liberal arts school.
I suppose his contention would be that you shouldn't study liberal arts at a liberal arts school.

well, I'm neither well-born (how would a school produce that?) nor particularly courteous - especially with pseudonymous trolls who have been sounding the same blaring trumpet blast for years. He never answers me, but just calls me names. Like thug. On the bright side, he finally after a couple of years learned to spell my 6 letter last name

The linguistics of pineapple are Cray cray
http://www.expolugha.tn/wp-content/uploads/pineapple.jpg
www.expolugha.tn
www.expolugha.tn

it hasn't stopped anyone else. Plus, this thread is just a rehash of about ten others of the same stripe.

I almost responded in earnest... Edward, you set a bad example.

Lauren, one of the things I learned from both of them, is not to engage in a conversation when one knows that there is no real desire to listen, understand, and explain on the part of the other.
The program of study at TAC disposes the mind to wisdom, by disposing the mind to thing reasonably. In this way, we do not reason to the faith, but we think reasonably about the faith.
However, while we have been given this gift, the one thing we were not given was that we were not told how to use this gift. How do we use the gift of thinking reasonably in age that rejects reason? Nevertheless, all graduates are charged to defend the Church and her teachings "in season and out of season."

Daniel Lendman, et al. one reason I've been "setting a bad example" is to avoid misunderstandings about TACer's attitudes to the rest of the world. Especially for people who cannot see anything of the other side.

Yeah, but it would probably be more fruitful for you to work on your Thesis Ed

"Class dismissed! All of you go spend an hour in the chapel!"

hahahahaha Perescott Wienventureburg calls the comments inane! Really!? Your assertion is still bare jackassery. I suppose starting with Holy Scripture is reasoning toward...... bah. Edward you got me started trying to respond. Never mind

But, those medieval universities only began teaching theology after years of math, philosophy, music, etc . ..

but, Daniel how can you claim i do not egage in conversation if no one has responded to my questions? Be assured i am searching for the answer. Lost arts are hard to unbury.

If you're not familiar with the heresies/heretics, how do you respond to them? Oops! I didn't just do that!!
In other thoughts, I'm wondering if the extent of everyone's participation in this conversation here is an accurate representation of how they are in class. Those that come in strong and then give up (rightfully or wrongfully) and start watching the clock, those that never give up, those that try to wrap things up, those that just start throwing random comments to keep everyone friends, those that come out of the wood work as class time comes to the end etc.

John, there was a different comment inbetween that Michael was responding to. I think your questions are the ones being thrown to the side while they address someone else still

and I can only stop (Edward Langley) on perfect numbers, we passed six, 28 and 496.... I cannot stop until 8128. By divine decree from the lost gnostic work of St. Thomas "De Numerologiae" we studied it in junior math

my questions are serious, perhaps tinged somewhat ironic. Socrates was also thought a troll.

^^^That's Ignatius J. Reilly talking. "With the collapse of the medieval system, the gods of Chaos, Lunacy and Bad Taste gained ascendancy." Is your real problem, Bonaventure Cheevy, that you long for the days of old when swords were bright and steeds were prancing?

and dirt farmers farmed actual dirt

John, I am sorry if my comments came off as directed toward you. From what I have read of yours, you seem to be a reasonable fellow. I am sorry that you are in the middle of this whirlwind since you seem to have a serious question in mind.

I don't know about that, Bonaventure. You could use a little color in your stale prose yourself. Right now you're just wearing the same shirt out in public every day, and it's starting to stink. You've consistently failed to engage anyone kind enough to entertain your (much more hostile than mine) attacks on an entire school. These are attacks you are not qualified to make, having failed to succeed in the program itself.
You have consistently failed to listen, avoided pointed questions, mocked your interlocutors, and generally behaved as a stubborn child. You have not made an argument. You have made bald claims without support and expected everyone to bow before you.
Who do you think you are? The Pope? Think again. Your words are those of a poor demented sap.
To everyone else - if I've offended you, I surely apologize. This is clearly a waste of time and I've simply become frustrated.

you care too much. I may have been frustrated on this same thread two years ago, but you get used to the rhythm of the Bonavenburg drum. You can even dance to it!

Daniel - what can I say. I think in stories and poetry and myths. Bonaventure will say that means I can't hope to approach sacred theology. I say that man is creative as God is creative, and that art can save souls. Perhaps Bonaventure is simply artless. I'm glad he has such intimate familiarity with the TRUE and PROPER ways to come to know and love the Trinity though.

I was never given the fullness of Sacred Theology. So, no.

"Miniver cursed the commonplace
And eyed a khaki suit with loathing;
He missed the mediæval grace
Of iron clothing.
Miniver scorned the gold he sought,
But sore annoyed was he without it;
Miniver thought, and thought, and thought,
And thought about it."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just throw that stuff at him because it is amusing. Some people can't be taught. He's back to misspelling my six letter last name

That's a terrible strategy, Van Boom. I only post deadly serious, insightful commentary with the full authority of tradition, and magisterial teachings

to feed a fury is worse than be one. He is tormented. The medieval disputant would argue either side. Help your brother out. Show him what medieval really is.

...myself

might "Peregrine Bonaventure" be an account run by Matthew to troll the TAC alumni? PERFORMANCE ART?

Escalante! At last a familiar face!

John, I'm no Callicles for you questioning. I don't play the "let me ask you something" game

I have actually had many good conversation via Facebook. Yet, I am sure you are right that there will not be an online version of the TAC program.

Do you mean your question about the classroom method John?

There is a history with the troll. Some of us have already had a 1000 comment thread with Scott (Peregrine) with some amazing discussion (on the alumni side) and absolutely no movement on his side. In fact, he escalates. The first time I engaged with him out of charity (to find the truth; to instruct the ignorant; and to down play his publicly offensive comments -- especially about the founders) but now I just don't engage.

John, let me ask you a question:
What are the boasts of TAC?

hardly tangential since it is the method claimed by tac grads and tutors. I raised both criticisms and alternatives. The lack of interested inquiry raises further concerns to the tac method vs. the Dumb Ox method which welcomed questions, considered and met objections, and took all sides like aristotle of any argument.

i am sorry they are lost in the whirl of dead horse beatings.

the boasts mb are scattered on this thread but why should i respond when tempered serious questions are ignored?

So is this "I won't respond because you won't"?

Given that the troll is absent, I am willing to participate in a real discussion.

John asked about the Socratic method. He asked if there are any examples of dialogues between only 2 young people. He is opposing that to the teacher crafting a discussion with one person he is drawing out the lesson with.

I am really confused on why John hasn't restated his own questions since you have all asked him to in various ways. But there you go. He can now say I am misrepresenting him (or not)

I would also say it varies from one tutor to another (and that is more true now than when I attended in 1990's). I have heard some shocking stories about how some classrooms are run. So -- it is hard to say "TAC does this" when tutors have their own flavour.

Qua! Qua! Qua!

TAC is neither Socratic method nor Scholastic method. It is Buchanan/Adler method, for better or for worse.

I do think it would be much better if TAC stopped claiming to be "Socratic" anything

But the seminar method is Socratic in the sense of "de-sedimentizing" concepts which people assume they understand when they don't. On the other hand, lead by a skilled tutor, it is an exciting way of uncovering what is implicit in what people already know, and in making distinct what they know confusedly.

Both in philosophy and in theology learning consists largely in making distinct what one already knows confusedly; in philosophy what one knows by "common conceptions" (see blogpost linked above), and in theology what one knows by the sensus fidelium (see: http://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/.../unwritten-tradition/)

Thanks to Matthew J. Peterson's wording in the header for the thesis title slideshow, we now have a thread with a higher word count than most of those thesis papers.

Sorry Pater I think that's an awfully stretched sense of "Socratic" but I won't go into it further while you are vespering and thus unable to defend yourself

Escalante is right. The closest I ever experienced to "Socratic" at TAC was me explaining props to others stuck at the board in Euclid. Other than that, it was more of discussion method, again, for better or worse, and not counting Neumayr or Berquist.

my response vanished. I will try later. Reread if u will my questions if u have time. Reconsider. I'll restate them better later. For now. Why was he called the Dumb Ox? Thanks for the the thoughtful responses.

I'm blocking Peregrine and unfollowing this thread. Sorry for any bad impressions I gave. I speak for myself and not on behalf of TAC or all TAC graduates, although I am much more thankful for my time there now than I used to be. This "conversation," however, is mostly sound and fury - and I just remembered that I will have to answer for every idle word, as will we all.
I wish you all the best - God bless and good luck. Keep the Faith!

Neumayr (Sorry pedantry)

Someone should compile a quotable Berquist page. It might not be as popular as a quotable Molly Gustin one but much more valuable.

Hilarious: "Some of you, perhaps, will go back to your rooms and listen to the Grateful Dead or the Rolling Stones on your phonographs, and we regret that profoundly." (phonographs!!!??) Mr Berquist lecture

the first confrontation I had with the head prefect was me listening to Minor Threat as loud as the stereo would go with the door locked. fun times.

Shannon you are my favorite

Behold! The Leviathan!

Anne Schniederjan Can someone summarize this

well, according to the wiki, lighting a troll on fire is the preferred method...

go home Sceregritt Bonwienventureburg, you're drunk

hence the straw man

we have it on the grand authority of Scottrine Wienventure that they don't. Why argue with such an august interlocutor, master of repetition, insult and bold claim?

finally realized what this thread reminded me of http://online.wsj.com/.../SB10001424127887324904004578539...
A Different Take on Reality TV: 18 Hours of Swimming Salmon
online.wsj.com
Norwegians love their boring shows, from the progress of a ferry boat to a 30-hour interview.

I wasn't trying to illuminate the faith, o pseudonymous troll

So many comments, and I still think Aaron Gigliotti had the best one: "Do You Want to Share an Apartment in Pasadena: The Relationship Between Insular Catholic Colleges and the Failure to Launch."

oh so *I'm* a scoffer but Mr Gigliotti isnt. I see how it is, Pater

Here's how a real scoffer summarized the theology tutorial at TAC (I'm not making this up):
«Freshman year the TACer reads the Bible and thinks "OMG this book is confusing; I'm glad I never have to read it again."
Sophomore year he reads Augustine against the Pelagians and thinks, "OMG this is depressing! I'm probably going to Hell and can do nothing about it; I hate theology!"
Junior year he reads the Prima Pars and thinks: "OMG! This makes so much sense!! I LOVE St Thomas!!!!! This is real theology! I'm never going to read anything except St Thomas ever again!!!! Thank you TAC for introducing me to this amazing writer! I Love my college!"» </sarcasm>

It's more than slightly misleading; it verges on false advertising, kind of like the non-existent horses in the old pamphlets from the 90s. But TAC itself is very confused about what it's up to. Contra the FB personage whom I still think might be Peterson in disguise, TAC most definitely teaches theology, lots of it, it just does much of that surreptitiously. Here's the thing: SJC has as the aim of the class to have thought well about something. TAC *says* that too, but really it has as its aim to have arrived at the truth of something. This certainly involves theology; except that its position as regina sc is very oddly related to the SJC method TAC imported. Too often,what one ends up with is neither fish nor fowl.

But this is where I think my pet theory about the analogy of confused knowledge in philosophy and theology comes in.

What TAC really understands itself as doing (but alas this doesn't come across in the promotional material), is peripatetic discussion. Recall that Aristotle's works were not strictly lecture notes as the many foolishly assert, but actually discussion outlines for walking around and talking.

Because we were co-ed and girls like to chat sitting down.

"peripatetic" ahem ahem

No but seriously: here's my theory in philosophy learning is a matter of making distinct the very certain but confused and implicit knowledge that we have of the world. Ch. 1 of the Physics and all that jazz... Theology is a matter of clarifying the Revelation of Christ that is present in a very certain but confused way in the Apostolic tradition: "Thus the Apostles had the fullness of revealed knowledge, a fullness which they could as little realize to themselves, as the human mind, as such, can have all its thoughts present before it at once." (Newman) So there is no opposition between paripatetic discussion and Catholic Wisdom.

"Theology is a matter of clarifying the Revelation of Christ that is present in a very certain but confused way in the Apostolic tradition" Pater Edmund
Is that you or Newman talking? I kind of agree. Except it sounds more accurate to say seminal in place of 'confused'.

JA Escalante writes "SJC has as the aim of the class to have thought well about something. TAC *says* that too, but really it has as its aim to have arrived at the truth of something." I think that is precisely the difference between socratic and peripatetic discussion. SJC is Socratic; TAC is peripatetic. So I agree that the Perpatetic Socratic amounts to false advertising.

Pater, no opposition between peripatetic method and the substance of Catholic wisdom. But TAC isn't entirely peripatetic; it has time constraints and wants to get at the truth in a hurry if necessary. We've all seen this, and it's bad. It would be better and more honest to just lecture in that case. Too, TAC isn't just method; its a curriculum, and the curriculum as it stands doesn't really have theology as regina scientiarum; it sort of can't. Like I said, it's in more of a Maritainian State to Church relation.

I think what TAC is trying to do is nearly impossible (and very heroic!) because the students are for the most part poorly prepared to receive it. So not only do they want to achieve a certain level of learning by the end, but they have to prepare the foundation in the students (or even more -- remove the impediments to learning) before proceeding. It is remarkable what they can do with a class of mostly publicly educated students in modern America in merely 4 years.
The learning model they emulate (classical model) never had such an uphill battle to fight.
I bristle at the accusation of the arrogance of the founders because the older I become, the more I am in awe of their humility to be willing to read and let me (and my classmates) make attempts at discussions on such lofty matters. Seriously -- maybe I could have benefited from more lectures -- but not really in the long run.

I mean there's no architectonic relation. The curriculum is self-standing

anyhow we all know that the REAL regina scientiarum at TAC is math

The Berquist - Steadman Dialogue is very relevant here.

well Pater earlier you said "Physics and all that jazz"...and comparing the Physics to jazz would get you excommunicated by Berquist in a jiffy

The Berquist Steadman dialogue is here BTW:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED216573.pdf

by poor man, I mean Steadman

But even Mr Berquist never managed to make theology loom large; "theology" in TAC practice meant bits of Thomas, not read in particularly useful order. Seriously, how many TAC grads came out being able to say anything about, for instance, the question of infused contemplation (unless they chose to write a thesis on it)? But that kind of thing is crucial to Catholic theology. Or, how many could name the theories of Incarnation, and which of them are considered orthodox and which aren't?

that dialogue is the paradigm of the experience of the Guest Lecturer

I had the best theology tutors. That helps a lot.

Ferrier, Berquist, MacArthur x 2

817: tell us about the cash Matthew J. Peterson—how much did you get?

Does it? It might be more a sign of their maturity after 4 years. Or the practical options for grad school. (options for financial opportunities or lack of are likely similar)

I created a fan page for this thread.
https://www.facebook.com/GoesOnForever
The Neverending Thread
This is a fan page dedicated to "Slideshow: 2014 Seniors and Thesis Titles," a link post and ensuing commentary.
Community: 57 like this

I feel the Development Office could use this. "Alumni involvement extremely high"

Latest post on this thread's fanpage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions for Socratic discussion:
1) Is the Neverending Thread a part of Sacred Theology per se or per accidens?
2) What is its relation to Aristotle's doctrine of the eternity of the heavens?
3) Would Fabre consider it an organism?
4) If the Thread goes on forever, can it be bisected?
5) Is it a continuous quantity, or an ensemble of discrete units?
6) What would the Founding Fathers have said about it?
7) Would you like to go with me for a rosary walk?

https://soundcloud.com/sancrucensis/marcus-berquist-common

Further, JA Escalante, I object to the position that the admissions office never really got what the school was about. At least when my father-in-law, Tom Susanka was head of admissions I know that he would confer with the founders, particularly McArthur and Berquist about the school and what was essential to it, often. There are few alive today, I believe, who have a better appreciation of what the school is and is supposed to be than my father-in-law. That being said, I am not sure that is true of all those who were/are responsible for advertisement, nor necessarily for the admissions office today.

"I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is ... a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

We had a great sound.

...and fully assented to the Faith.

but clever move

I grant that Mr Susanka knows what the school is about, or what it wants to be about; I think the problem was a) an unintentionally misleading use of "Socratic", and "discussion method" by Admissions, and b) problems inherent in the ratio studiorum which he might not have noticed, or if he did, might have just chalked up to human frailty. No one's fault

You may be right. Something to think about also: TAC was wholly new. Nothing of its kind ever existed. I suppose we should not be surprised if the ratio and practice differ somewhat.
Here is another way to put it: How else could the school explain to people what it was doing? All the terms: "Socratic," "Discussion method," "Peripatetic," etc., all fall short. Socratic, and Discussion method, however, are close and they also are familiar enough in the preexisting academic categories that they seem to be reasonable choices for use.

and I agree with Jody that the founders were pretty heroic

Just as aside, we aren't even close to the record for comments on a fb thread. That is: 584,444 (so start splicing those replies I suggest if you want to reach such infamy)

still, I bet we beat anything Christendom College has ever done here

I still think our word count is higher

Or, at least a goal.

What!? JA Escalante, you left TAC after TWO YEARS? No wonder you think the ratio studiorum doesn't make sense; the sense doesn't begin to become clear till JUNIOR YEAR. Dude, GO BACK AND FINISH THE PROGRAM AT ONCE.

Why is there no "dislike" button on FB? I need to dislike this comment: https://www.facebook.com/matth.../posts/10152587096221508...
Only because it reveals that Escalante MISSED OUT. My dear sir, go back, go back, go back.

By the way, JA Escalante - there were horses at TAC when I was there ('93 grad) so the advertising material was not misleading.
There is a lot I could say on the topic of the TAC program... Now, and on this thread, is probably not the time.
I'll just make one parting comment: all these anecdotes about the program of study from one who supposedly attempted it several times and never finished, another who attempted it for two years and quit and another who has never even met a graduate of the program leave me grateful that I learned the limits of personal experiences while studying at TAC.

Also, given how befuddled Stedman et al. were, it is hard to think that one could get the true purpose across in an ad in the National Review. Can you blame the school for, how shall I say ... emphasizing the easier to understand aspects of the curriculum there? After all, plenty of people come year after year expecting little math and lots of literature. The school could hardly be more explicit about exactly what is studied.

Joel, I wonder if comparing what graduates study after TAC is a fair assessment of the curriculum, or rather it speaks to the type of person who will suffer through 4 years of TAC.....

I remember speaking to Dr. Neumayr once when I was in the thick of bearing 6 children and before I went to graduate school to study Theology.
He told me I was using my education exactly as it was meant to be used: living my life and being a good Mom.
Studying Theology doesn't say a lot about anything.
How many graduates are striving for holiness? Teaching the faith to their own children? Volunteering at their parish? Another question entirely....

I do have a response to Marie, but it's better not to say it (it could provoke another good 300 comments) . Suffice it to say her complaint I think is legitimate in my judgement.

Michael Beitia (or is it spelled Bethea? ;-)), I think that's true too. And I'd wager there are more TAC alumns w/ STEM post-grad degrees than literature. Could be wrong about that though.

What's wrong with reading Eliot? or Freud?

Magisterium your magisterial mouth Joel!

Christendom Phil327..... studies Freud. How cavalier!

Pater, I actually picked up a copy of "Curious Naturalists" by Tinbergen at a library book sales a few years back. Really interesting.

waaaaaay too magisterial.

https://archive.org/details/LearningAndDiscipleship
Learning And Discipleship : Marcus Berquist : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
A lecture at Thomas Aquinas College

so you're subscribing to the idea that in order to teach something you need to be specifically trained in that subject, right?

« Much I want to say, unsaid,
Unsayable, much I must say,
If say anything, but you tire.
I should speak in tongues, which,
Not knowing, you’d more understand
That you misunderstand me. »

Related probably to nothing, I have always been struck by Augustine's interpretation of taking the gold from Egypt: All good, true, and beautiful things belong to Christianity. Somethings, to be sure, more evidently than others, but my oh my, what a poor world it would be if theologians did not read Eliot.

Finally, I agree with Peregrine on something!

Per accidens. I'm an infidel.

I enjoy the poetry of Elliot, but I don't agree with Peregott on principle

pretty sure i was i was excommunicated by pope peregrine. It was invalid though and he didnt usf the book ,bell and candle even. Why me?

John Ruplinger, you suggested above that it is dangerous for one's soul to study theology unless one has taken the Evangelical Councils. I would like to see some discussion of this. What do people think? Is it OK for lay-people and diocesan priests to study theology? Or should it be the exclusive preserve of vowed religious as JR suggests? Surely everyone has to know SOME theology, but I guess that JR meant that only religious should study it scientifically. John Ruplinger: do you think that liberal arts colleges whose students are lay people ought to have no theology classes. What exactly is the claim here?

to restate: say what you will about the merits or drawbacks of the curriculum, style, culture etc. of TAC, but to personally attack the people working there seems a new low

I should revise that. I agree with the old school that theology ought to be limited for lay folks. I haven't studied the matter. I only see the effects. I certainly wouldn't limit Diocesan priests. They, however, are under a stricter obedience and generally have the faculty of preaching from the bishop. So its not so much Evangelical Councils. I see big problems with the proliferation of lay theologians (lots of mini-popes we have these days.

TAC introduces theology. We don't want to enter into a 2000 comment thread with a bunch of amateur know it all theologians like me. Suffice to say I used to like Newman a bunch. I still love his little essay on Elementary Education: it's brilliant and thought provoking. However, I regard his development (written while Anglican) as condemned and very very dangerous (by the Syllubus of St. Pius IX). Watch out for fireworks now.

you cannot get him to define it. It has been tried. Any question on that front provokes the "see TAC doesn't teach sacred theology" again.
and again
and again

beats me

It's his understanding of development

it's condemned by the Syllabus almost verbatim at points.

Rather they are the same in the beginning as now, some literally the same; others indistinctly as you Pater Edmund) note in your essay linked elsewhere.

Is that it opens the door to changing doctrines which is impossible.

I wish I had read more closely Providentissimus Deus because it's very very clear there and so helpful.

I thought Newman's development was not that something that was doctrine could no longer be doctrine but rather along the lines of the development of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (and the development of understanding and clarity within different doctrines)

Clarity, yes. Development, no. Read the Syllabus of Errors. Some of what passes as standard fare is condemned in it (and rightly because it leads to CHANGE of doctrine which is impossible because Truth cannot change over time)

That's Newman's take which everyone now says.

But I am only an amateur.

Development, clarity -- they can mean the same. Refining things that have always been seminally there.

no seminales. There's a difference between indistinct and something that can morph. (this is to Jody Haaf.)

No that is the question Matthew, and I am just not well enough read. Let's just say that Newman's theory was on the chop block in his day. There were propositions almost verbatim in the Syllabus. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, even assuming some bit of development that is legitimate, it has now morphed into something different: a real change of doctrine.

That isn't how I read Newman. But that would be a whole other thread to do a reading!

But when you figure out who and what the modernists are, that'll happen to you.

I guess someone could misapply Newman's principles but that doesn't make him in error on this. Apparently that has happened.

He was not made to recant but his book was on the chopping block and moreover it was REFUTED by someone here in the States whose name I forget (and I haven't read).

let's get all poetical and sh*t

Well, I am a little befuddled by the supposed condemnation of Newman. Joshua Kenz would know better than I. That being said, Newman would hold that The Immaculate Conception was in some way believed by all for all time. Certainly the Church clarified her teaching on the matter and that is why it was so defined.
John, I think you are right that the notion of development has gotten out of hand, but that is hardly reason to reject it as true. It may be reason to stop teaching it so much, however. (Here I am reminded of Cardinal Pell's remarks about the primacy of conscience. With regard to this he said that was certainly true, but people clearly can't handle it, so let's stop talking about it. A good pastoral move, if you ask me.)
I am of the same mind with regard to lay theologians. I think they have an important place in the Church, and I think many of them have made positive contributions to the Church. I think Pope Francis is right to combat clericalism. The gifts of the Spirit are not determined by whether or not one belongs to an order.
That being said, lay theologian can and should be subject to the Bishop insofar as they teach theology. Indeed, insofar as they teach theology they are sharing in the bishop's pastoral duty.

can somebody please change their profile pic? All these Arabic "n"s are getting confusing.

no, just lay theologians

ouch

oooooooooouuuuch.

you got me Matthew. But would you say that the apostles didn't understand that Christ was the same substance as the Father until LATER WAS invented the word homoousios? [what I meant to say, Matthew]

Well - I don't know - they didn't need to. Others later on did.

fixed it Matthew.

I AM NOT STATIC NO NO NO NO

I take the minion thing as a compliment... They're cute

SCREW THAT. Grumpy popes man. Now i

Look - I think key here is why one even needs a Holy Spirit guarantee for the Church, as Prot's need for the individual. It ain't because this all works out purty-like: otherwise, what's the need.

Menin aeide thea Ruplingeri

Which hurled the souls of strong lay theologians into the house of Hades?

council............................most were FALSE.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM MATTHEW. because they denounce error, they appear to us as grumpy

FALSE PERSPECTIVE

To clarify, I use "Holy Spirit guarantee" a bit tongue in cheek. What that actually means doctrinally is a complicated business.

none of the new fad limp wristed crap.

silly. That document helped lead me from confusion to understand what tradition is.

John, do you see the need for many of the modern encyclicals?

Just call me Supertroll if you will................

(putting my tiara back on) You have it all backwards Matthew. nononono. I just don't know what I can say to help you see things otherwise. I don't know whether we can come to an agreement on things. And perhaps, talking about it from this angle is unhelpful.....since we're debating from conclusions and not premises.

Michael, I have read almost every VII and many of Paul VI documents and JPII. Especially the former I've combed through many in Latin. WE HAVE AT THE LEAST very very serious problems with writing precisely....but I'm afraid more than that too. As von Hildebrand pointed out (in a letter to Michael Davies long after he wrote Trojan Horse), we do not have to accept most of these documents (they do not have the kind of authority folks thing they do ---- that's the pastoral provision, esp. in the nota previa). Anywho, hope I don't "scandalize" too many. But we've got really really serious problems that aren't just because trads are crunchy.

what's the heresy being fought in Lumen Fidei?

^you're one of them^?

what doctrine is being defined, or heresy fought?

is it?

??

What is Lumen Fidei? What is your question?

Oh, I didn't read that. I haven't read new Encycs in a few years.

Maybe I should ask everyone:
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE ENCYCLICAL, LUMEN FIDEI?

I suppose "love is the core of faith" is probably important to focus on, St. Paul didn't say too much about it. (this is sarcasm) (edited to make sarcasm more clear)

^...sorry, what?

in other news, I just popped open Newman to give you guys his five definitions for "development" and then you moved on so I am a little disappointed.

thanks for the update, Buddha.

... I was just ribbing you, sir, haha.

On Faith. Here's a pretty good explanation. I DON"T know why everything needs to be brought up date, unless that just means brought up to our current state of absolute frickin unbelievable state of confusion. http://www.cin.org/.../ebooks/master/trent/tcreed00.htm
THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Creed -- Introduction
www.cin.org
The Catechism of Trent

or is that too "grumpy pope"?

Wasn't rambling the criticism by Garagou Lagrange of a certain dissertaion of a certain.......

Nina: POST THEM.
This is the thread that *never* ends - so we don't "move on" or "move back" here.
Put aside your time bound anxieties here on the thread that never ends, Nina Rachele
Post.
Post and be free.

...............theological ???

Peterson: we move in a circle

Sorry Nina Rachele - tagged wrong person.

"[...] metaphysical developments; I mean such as are a mere analysis of the idea contemplated, and terminate in its exact and complete delineation [...] in the sacred provinces of theology, the mind may be employed in developing the solemn ideas, which it has hitherto held implicitly and without subjecting them to its reflecting and reasoning powers." pg 52, Ch1 section 9

I really miss the stakeburnings too.

Don't need to quote historical developments, it just means finding the right dates of things that happened in Scripture.

He led a campaign to undermine it because he KNEW that he held (at least at one time) many of the things condemned.

Nina Rachele, huh is right. A careful examination of his epistemology leads to real problems. (I haven't read his Grammar of Assent.) I trust Laron's account of it here. He's fundamentally nominalist it seems to me, which is very problematic for ALL dogmas of the faith.

By political development he is talking about the development of church government from, say, Peter-->bishops to pope-->bishops+curia, various other church governing bodies.

No, Nina, his epistemology is modernist (as condemned in Pascendi). He is adulated today because he espoused immanentism, which necessarily leads to the devaluation (if not destruction) of dogma and contributes to their changeability.

Yeah, Nina, it's been a loong while since I read him. LIS he is the protoevangelist for the modernist. full. stop. end sentence. period. It's why everyone is all Newman said this, Newman said that. ......... yeah, he says some good stuff, but upon close inspection..... TO YOUR ETHICS, however, this appears consonant with Newman's epistemology. He holds almost a double truth. But LIS, I haven't read him in awhile.

I'm out for a while.

now that I have provided you all with this information, may I suggest you take his definition of metaphysical development as the primary definition of development and discuss further from there. So, if I were actually asking the opening question at this point, I would open to that quote and ask "Is this wrong? Is it consonant with Church teaching?" Just so you know, the main example he gives of metaphysical development is the Athanasian Creed--can we characterize the Creed in that way?
Um, I need to go study for my paralegal class now, so catch you folks on the flip side...

What is immanentism?

Nina, I don't know you, but I like you already.

One of life's finer mysteries Megan

Please summarize comment 127...

Nina, as to his "metaphysical" development, as he states it thus quoted, shouldn't he just say "logical" development instead. It seems a misuse of the term metaphysical, if what he is saying is just drawing out conclusions from other propositions we know by Faith. He seems to be mystifying what should be straight forward. But is this all that Newman means? ......and for that, you're going to have me look elsewhere.

Twenty year olds are for the most part intellectual babies and should be coddled and spoon fed. One of my architecture professors once told us that architecture was "an old man's game" and I think the same is basically true of theology (and philosophy).
Unless you are thinking of re-introducing old medieval-style disputations, which I admit do sound exciting.
Mr. Ruplinger, I really want to try and understand what you are saying but it might take me some time to get through what you've posted.

Now, how does is epistemology affect his theory on the development of doctrine? That shouldn't be too hard to see that it must, in some measure...the very concerns in both works being along the same lines...but it might be a dissertation to analyse it fully.

Do note, lastly, that Newman was quite idiotic in his naive rejections of much of scholastic principles. If you read the link I gave, you will tell readily that his rejection of universals rests on the sort of prima facie reading that a teenager might give to "man is rational." Namely that he may be irrational. But that is to misunderstand what is claimed, rather badly at that.
But he didn't have TAC to hook him on Aristotle and Aquinas... he was in the tradition of Bacon and Locke instead

Peterson, isn't it self evident that the truth unfolds over time?

I've been following this thread since the beginning (and, for what it's worth, am one of the ugly mugs from the original article way up there, who apparently spent last year in "idle speculation"). I fear this discussion of Newman is not a genuine development from what was contained seminally at the beginning of this thread; that is to say, we seem to be dangerously close to a polite, consistent, and sane intellectual discussion. It seems to me that the early Thread Fathers might not approve.

On the contrary Sean Robertson: the early thread fathers all agreed about everything and had everything figured out.
In fact, they began the submagisterium of this thread, which is a static block of truth that needs to be used to hit everyone here over the head, repeatedly, until they see things the way I see the early thread fathers.

you're gonna "develop" yourself right into a doctrine of Divine Quaternity or some mess

Joshua, the first developmentalist in the Newman sense was probably Petavius, who was countered by the Protestant Bishop Bull (who was congratulated by Bossuet, as I recall, for his efforts)

I discerned his wickedness the day I met him

absolutely not

but that is not really a conversation for this thread. Let's stick to Peterson's wickedness

if I were Catholic I would regard Newman's epistemology and developmentalism as a trojan horse; I'll say that much, Message me privately

P.S.- A majority of orthodox Catholic theologians during the middle ages WERE nominalists, historical fact (eg, see John Marenbon's book).

I'm glad to hear it, that was always my assumption until reading that quote just now. Joshua (if you're out there in cyberspace), is there any more proof that you could present to justify your claim that Newman rejected universals?

That's just a sort of substitution of prudence and imagination for reason, and hunches/gestalt impressions for clear ideas. That doesn't make him much of anything except a Romantic

except that reason for him isnt "scientific". But it is for Aquinas.

I agree that Newman is not so simple, Peregrine Bonaventure, but the thread that never ends will allow us to continue that in a bit.
We all need to look at what JA Escalante just said as regards the Newman quote you quoted approvingly above: tell us a bit more about how and why you think it doesn't describe TAC, because it sure seems like it is Newman defending TAC against you and your objections...

At some point you need to explain to us why your Newman quote doesn't contradict what you've said all thread, because it seems it does.

Petavius= Denis Petau, SJ

I wonder if nominalism is a sufficient structure to study and comment on history? Though the nominalist would probably view history as some sort of master science, since the well educated historian could make the best generalizations. That being said, history does not have universals, only generalizations, so a nominalist's approach to history might be a sufficient one.
This occurs to me about theology: The right context for theology is a well-ordered prayer life. The only one suited to judge about someone's well-ordered prayer life is a confessor or spiritual director, or oneself. Thus, a school that teaches theology must only make a well-ordered prayer life possible. A well-ordered prayer life, of course, has its pinnacle in Holy Mass. As perfect, it would include the fulness of liturgical observance with the Divine Office. This perhaps sheds light on a discussion we had above (note, Matthew J. Peterson, I do not say "before") when we discussed the lay theologian. Insofar as there is a valid and healthy prayer life possible for a layman, and insofar as there is truly a domestic church, then it is possible for there to be lay theologians. Though, evidently, lay theologians cannot obtain to the perfection that religious theologians do, because of the imperfection of their state in life.
Joshua, thanks for coming back to this thread!

I nominate you all to pour a bucket of ice on your heads every time a comment is added to this thread.

don't want to waste clean water, Anthony.
So what does Newman's nominalism have to do with:
A) his idea of a university and
B) his idea of the development of Christian doctrine?

as to doctrine, he is modernist but one need read Pascendi for that to be understood. Nominalism undermines all doctrines.

I've read Pascendi, both for class at TAC and later on for my own personal reference (as a refresher).
Is it possible that his views on epistemology were inconsistent internally in his writings? Obviously if one is consistently nominalist, history and experimental science are the only fields of (valid) study.
(I am reminded of the mathematician Gauss saying he wanted to have people on the tops of three mountain peaks, sufficiently far apart, to measure the interior angles of a triangle between the three to determine whether geometry is Euclidean or not...)

Returning to the "Idea of University", they are simply a collection of lectures, and I was never much impressed with them. In them he actually outlines the modern university. The only piece on Elementary Education, was obviously never a lecture but a very clever dialogue. In it, however, some of the wrong methods of learning in mid19th century are evident: esp. the stagnant English method of Latin which the Jesuits traditionally taught orally (much easier to learn). At the same time it is a very good and thought provoking dialogue, showing the need to balance self-learning and receive DIRECTION from a tutor -- apropos to the earlier beginnings of a discussion on education.
One note: the Jesuits were famous for conducting their classes in a delightful way such that the students so interested learned the most difficult things almost effortlessly. I wish I knew how they did it. Waugh (Edmund Campion) points it out (and others). Fr. Thomas Hughes wrote the only book in English detailing their course and giving some insight to what they did. Peregrine might be interested to learn that St. Ignatius himself thought rhetoric (read literature) was the only part of the course NEVER to be compromised: literature for THREE years -- to ease Peregrine's concerns, he should also note that they excised the more salacious and saltry parts of texts like parts of Book II of the Aeneid. anyways, gotta run ..... late already.

the Aeneid?? Apparently St. Ignatius didn't teach the fullness of sacred theology in accordance with the magisterium

I think there is a very distinct difference between nominalism (which Newman may or may not have been.... I think Mr. Kenz did some good work with that) and phenomenology.
But I think it is pretty clear from a study of Brittish Empiricists that the separation into "notional" and "real" leads directly to nominalism.

I can't speak for Daniel, but no, obviously

In addition, I think Mr. Lendman's outline is consonant with Augustine's own qualifications in De Doctrina Christiana.

Nina, I am liking you more and more, by the post.

The idea that phenomenology is nominalism, however, is just absurd to my mind. The long line of people who came out of Husserl - nominalists? They were trying to save the world from positivism and historicism for Pete's sake.

Daniel Lendman, your accusation is thoroughly absurd. Not a quote in this thread from Newman, that has not been shown to be or is evidently unsound. I've linked James Larson. I don't expect any here to refute him, but his criticism is devastating. I have read a deal of Newman with great care.

And you argue like a politician.

Please lay things out clearly.

okay, lemme get this straight, Newman isn't known or read for his epistemology, but we have to read this idea of development of doctrine (which seems pretty epistemological). Which is it?

historical in the sense of Historicist is epistemological

Yeah, don't discuss his epistemology which is the heart and root of the problem. As to Nina, that is a summary and I disagree with Newman. Notional assent is more certain than assent to the world of phenomena. Again, evidence of his nominalism

Well, I'd start with what he says about development and then tie that his episteme if I was against him. Kenz did a bit of that tie so it wasn't quite clear.
But anyone for 'em is going to say who gives a crap about what he thought about universals if you read the rest of his writings - he was stuck with crappy episteme and the rest of his work doesn't really rely on it.
Etc.

so you're saying baptize his works like Thomas did to Aristoilet?

To both things.

So Lendman, every response I've made is merely "political". I don't think you hardly read half of my responses.

Will you please, oh sir sigh a lot, return above and show me how or how not Nina's quote of Newman's understanding of metaphysical development is not ridiculous?

Maybe it is. I would just like to see an argument, that's all.

are you really John, and Daniel) going to make us scroll *all* the way up to the quote on metaphysical? Really? My eternal return of the same circle only goes clockwise.....

My response: Nina, as to his "metaphysical" development, as he states it thus quoted, shouldn't he just say "logical" development instead. It seems a misuse of the term metaphysical, if what he is saying is just drawing out conclusions from other propositions we know by Faith. He seems to be mystifying what should be straight forward. But is this all that Newman means? ......and for that, you're going to have me look elsewhere.

Re theses: Didn't Rebecca Loop come back and give her thesis "On Exemplary Causality in the First Being" as a lecture to the college? A version of it was published in The Aquinas Review (1998), iirc. Anyone have a copy of it?

how about: when was "metaphysical" "mere analysis"?

he says "mere analysis of the idea contemplated"

In this context, he says that. I am not sure that we should put too much weight on that as an exhaustive account.

Caldwell High School 4-evah!

It does require reading more of what Newman says. I thought that Joshua's commentary was pretty revealing. Again, I'm most familiar with Newman's "idea" (and indeed what does that mean given his notions of idea?) of a university. He was acclaimed the great orator of his day, but is unimpressive -- not just my judgment but others better than I who even agree with his development and stand on infallibility.

It's just that every quote of Newman in the last 200 comments, does not stand up to scrutiny.

So what are the requirements re theses? Double D?

I am not ready to condemn Newman as a nominalist. It is not clear to me how clear he was on philosophy at all.

Matthew, no special requirements; they just have to be really good.

John Ruplinger, here's the link (pp.84-99): http://www.scribd.com/.../Newman-s-Apologia-and-the-Drama...
Newman's Apologia and the Drama of Faith and Reason - Draft5
www.scribd.com
Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site.

Double D would be the norm, I'd imagine (or at least distinction for the written part). Didn't they used to give theses letter grades? I recall Kolbeck telling me he changed that to pass/fail/distinction while he was dean.

What is the question we are currently answering, if what I stated above is not the question? Unless we have just gone straight into talking about Newman's thought generally speaking, which I admit I am not qualified to do.

Nina Rachele, We are each of us talking about our own pet topics, as our minds each flit from one to the next. Discourse and dialogue were right out almost from the start.

Oh, Ryan Burke, I didn't include your thesis on why my thesis is wrong. So I guess that's another rule: no republicanism.

see you later., perhaps. and I got that doc downloaded this time. Maybe I read a different one.

I blame Pater Edmund... he totally derailed this convo

well, we were about to put Newman on the index, and then Pater Edmund has to go and collect a list of things that go on the Pope Perescott index.....

To be fair, Pater Edmund, my thesis has borne up less well than past me thought it would. Also to be fair, your thesis was written to prove me wrong, rather than vice versa, as I recall

Would it be textbook based or a selection of primary sources?

yeah. 2 different links

Would the primary sources be presented in their entirety, with one author studied at a time, or would (for example) multiple authors be presented on a single topic?

I'm still holding out hope for perfection: 8128

Principally the data presented by the extraordinary magisterium. This is really necessary for subsequent theological inquiry in the areas of faith and morals, and the examination of parts of the Summa, the principle writing of the doctors through the Reformation, and to present. This is not that difficult.

So, by extraordinary magisterium, you mean church councils? Is that correct?

Pater, you owe me a decade of the rosary for slogging through your reasonable summary of the last 500 years of philosophy.

Then we would have to do it.

newman is on trial. His books must burn

Peterson, there you go all irresponsibly thinking you can determine if doctrine develops or not.

Yeah - let's do that then. How are Newman's definitions that Nina Rachele posted wrong?

Mr. PB Scott: Would your objections to the TAC curriculum be removed if all (or most) of the major councils were included? Or is your real objection to the seminar method itself?

I have no objection to the seminar method. It is the best. There are 400+ major doctrines of the Church. They came from somewhere. Students need to get a sense of how they came to be in the "mind" of the Church, so to speak; and the reasonability of doctrine, and the theological process of mind that underscores things worthy of belief. This is not a philosophical habit of mind, which TAC is really good at. This is different than that, and this requires a special regimen. Certainly some of the councils would be useful, but the main thing are the theological principles which came from the councils, and Sacred Scripture, and how the Church and Her principle theologians have supported those in their thinking over the years.

Adding my sister, Lucy Nolan's thesis on the Brother's K.

Here's a snip from John Senior's polemic against TAC in The Restoration of Christian Culture:
«In this crucial respect of finality the curriculum at some Catholic colleges is superior to the older secular programs they are modeled on; but even so it would be wise for the Thomist philosophers among them to recall the Scholastic dictum that means must be proportionate to ends. The seminar as a means of learning purports to be a dialectic process derived from the Socratic dialogues. Even if this were so–which a glance at Plato’s text proves false, and even if there were students prepared for such a course–which a glance at their reading habits proves ridiculous, but even if there were such a dialectic and such students, without the formal lecture and professors who draw not just the questions but the right answers out, these seminars slide down into bull-sessions in which the strongest bull or the most artful dodger wins; and if such sessions become habitual, they result in arrogant skepticism, which is where Plato’s Academy ended. Students need systematic exposition of ideas and hard, daily practice of logical disputation under the controlled conditions of real debate; and, without years of training in gymnastics, music, poetry, art, history, and in manners, morals and religion, which used to be supplied by Christian homes and schools, the exchange of opinion in Great Books seminars encourages the very sophistry Socrates gave his life to combat. The student learns a critical method with which to demolish the ideas of others without having grasped any reality in the ideas at all and worst of all, if he has failed in the meantime to master his appetites and temperament–if he is weak, impatient, malicious, sensuous or indolent–with such critical weapons he is well on his way to Vanity Fair, where you get a Ph.D. and tenure.
The ancients distinguished four degrees of knowledge: the poetic, where truths are grasped intuitively as when you trust another’s love; the rhetorical, where we are persuaded by evidence, but without conclusive proof, admitting that we might be wrong, as when we vote for a political candidate; next the dialectical mode in which we conclude to one of two opposing arguments beyond a reasonable doubt, with the kind of evidence sufficient for conviction in a law court or in a laboratory testing to certify a drug for human use; and finally, in the scientific mode–science in the ancient and not the modern sense which is dialectical and rhetorical, but science as epistamai–we reach to absolute certitude as when we know the whole is greater than the part, that motion presupposes agency or know obvious facts such as Cuba is an island because we sailed around it. Each of these degrees has its appropriate faculties: poetry, memorization and imaginative play; rhetoric, precept and practice; dialectic, scholastic disputation and laboratory experiment; science, systematic exposition. But where does “class discussion” come in? Well, it isn’t on the list at all, and not because the ancients didn’t think of it, but because they rejected it. »

Is there an online copy of the whole of Senior's polemic contra TAC?

If you can't think logically how are you going to get all that greatness out of the documents? Especially the newer ones which are not written as clearly? Isn't that how we have people using a document to support their position when their position is torn apart two paragraphs later in the same document?

What a charmer!

https://www.facebook.com/.../tac-the.../582559135127560...
TAC, the Magisterium and The lights of Faith and Reason
On August 2 I provoked a very long thread that started with this quote from a friend, Scott Weinberg, critical of TAC. "From all I have been told on this subject, it seems to me that what the Chur
By: Richard Delahide Ferrier

oh, I think it's because I'm not friends with Dr. Ferrier.

You're not friends with Dr Ferrier???? oh... I'm not either...

No, I never had him as a tutor unfortunately...think I had him for an all-school once maybe...

Ok. I have refused to engage you, O Foolish Troll, but you cross the line when you insult women. Go away, Scott. Now.

Mr. PB Scott, if you have just been describing one school's particular curriculum, then just go ahead and send me a link, you don't need to waste your time with an explanation.

You keep saying things, but practically what would those things look like at a "real" Catholic school. I think that's all we are asking .

Nina, I would not waste your time. He is not interested in real discourse. I know.

More places where this has been gone over in detail (1): https://www.facebook.com/richa.../posts/10151881807463949...
Richard Delahide Ferrier
From a TAC alum, and Christendom grad. I would love to see many comments.

and (2): https://www.facebook.com/notes/sean-collins/on-some-questions-about-teaching-catholic-doctrine/10151799390270960
On Some Questions About Teaching "Catholic Doctrine"
Richard Delahide Ferrier suggests we go to bed ... reasonable enough, except that I'm a night owl, and this looks like my chance to jump into a very interesting conversation that I didn't know about b
By: Sean Collins

^good, I can read that one

Wear it like a badge of honour John

And Nina, those other places will witness to my patience and forbearance with regard to the troll.

Can we get back to Newman now, please?

Befriend Richard Delahide Ferrier all - and read that note and the comments.

Sadly, Pater Edmund, Scott's credibility is bankrupt. His initial questions are interesting and important. It is the follow-up that is the problem.

In charity, Daniel, I think Scott has burdens and crosses to bear irl, and as such cannot be treated as one would treat a man sound of mind and body who acted thus.

Joel, you're a jerk. Best of luck to you arrogant Catholics from TAC.

Your arrogance is proof of your lack of theological formation.

Though I do enjoy poking fun, I didn't mean to insult with my last comment, actually. I too am grateful to Scott for provoking the original threads, though he needn't be quite so provoking, in my view. Still I dont think dialogue is possible at this point, not when insults fly quite so readily. But dialogue is hardly the point of the thread, is it?

I still have honest questions about what "theological inquiry" is. and "theological basis" and "theological principles"
Help me out Perescottgrinebonawienventureburg

I'm at work. I call it "multi-trolling"

Stefon: "Facebook’s hottest thread is Peterson’s Never-ending Thread. This thread has it all: pseudonymous trolls demanding magesterium, fake thesis titles, Newman debates, trolling, reverse-trolling, collections of real theses, Monks, hipster protestants, rad trads, and neo caths."

reverse trolling! LOL! but there should be some mention of midgets doing something unseemly

"A human fanny pack? What's that?" "It's that thing of where a midget hangs around your waist and you keep your passport in his mouth"

Thank you the kind-hearted rebuke Joel. I fell into the trap of taking a troll seriously.

the sad thing is that he brings up things worth talking about.....and then spins in circles before the insults come out.
At TAC we learned the proper order of things. Insult first.

I wish you would be more clear, and less pugnacious.

A lot of the class of 2014 wrote on Contemplation this year! Wow! I didn't notice that at graduation!

I'm pouring a bucket of ice on my own head just for that quote alone.

Not sure why, but "TAC is a heresy factory" just made me laugh so hard I snorted. And that's my last frivolous comment for now.

Kurt, I have to thank Christendom College. Erin visited there when she was in high school.

Heresy open bar?

heresy salad bar

OK, just to make things weirder:
There's a Muslim college in Berkeley, California inspired by TAC, in part. The founders are big fans of TAC.
And no, the name is not The Averroist College!

Weiss Well, TAC grads create longer threads than FUS grads do....
But the FUS threads are dirtier.

Mr. Bonaventure, In seminar, one discusses a text. It is not a setting for the presentation of someone elses conclusions. A tutorial would be closer to the setting for the kind of thing you are discussing. I am a St. Johnnie, not a TAC grad, so I don't know exactly what they do there, but if it is anything like St. John's, even in tutorial there is a spirit of inquiry. The texts would still be "great books", not a "textbook" and students would still be wrestling with the words of the writer. I would imagine that there would be some guidance from the tutor, which might at times include information about how various understandings of a work fit with doctrine. Why can't you just accept that different schools have different goals and methods, and choose to prefer the one you prefer, without haunting the threads of alumni of another college?

Actually I think TAC is mixed on the torture debates, and probably most against. It is mixed about America as well.
But, of course, many at TAC think the Ethics are "easy" and "lowly" compared to the more difficult and noble and important and lofty natural philosophy and metaphysics...

hope it helps. Later...

Unlike some of you people, I have a job! Sheesh...
In response to Pater Edmund, I started reading your link, and was quickly disappointed in the shallowness of assertions. Top of pg. 85, "Knowledge of things is not caused by their ideal forms, but by contemplating the thingsthemselves, or abstracting universals from them; it is founded, in a word, on experience."
And where on earth is that in Newman? Oh, no where. In fact, that is rejected quite expressly by him. He quotes Newman, from one of the same passages I quoted, but leaves out what he says about such generalizations.
I would certainly not call Newman the most radical nominalist. Any barely coherent nominalist epistemology has to have some version of a correspondence theory, resemblance, etc. But what is clear is that the "abstract" generalizations, for Newman, can only give us "probabilities" about concrete things. But he is interested in "concrete truths" so these universals, whatever role they may play, become irrelevant in knowing reality. He is extremely clear about that. That is not Aristotelian. And it sure as heck is not Platonist.
" The Grammar of Assent is relentlessly Aristotelian from start to finish"
I am sorry, but the more I read, the more I find there to be no argument, just assertions. Newman is not a Platonist because he waxed poetical.
And because he avers to Aristotle, so what? So did some of the greatest nominalists such of Ockham.
The only mention of universals in the Grammar I again already quoted. Where he mocks logic, as "dressing up middle terms" and proceeds to dismiss the search for universals, since that is not about the real, but the notional...not the concrete facts (that is all he cares about), but the abstract.
And there is only one other place, outside of unpublished notes (of which I post parts of one that show he had trouble, to his credit by his own admission, understanding the whole dispute!). That is here: in a comment following this one

"A very difficult question arises whether the subject of ideas comes directly into the province of Logic. Or in other words, whether names or terms stand for ideas or for things. It will be said that ideas and things go together, and therefore the question is unimportant ~ but there is the case in which there is, or is imagined, an idea without a thing, that is, the case of Universals.
Accordingly those then on the side of Things against Ideas, say that there are not universal ideas; and a controversy ensues which is nothing else than a portion of the old scholastic controversy, between the Nominalists, Realists, and Conceptionists."
Actually I tire of typing it out. I will summarize, in this passage he does say that a) he tends to agree with the Catholics in holding universals. b) but the onus of proof is on them c) and then he gives some lengthy unclear examples, and ends in saying that there are two types of universals. His examples are all about particulars. "and taking that question [whether Caesar refers to the thing or the idea] away, it certainly does seem more simple and natural to say the words stand for the things."
Heck he seems not to grasp what is meant by universal, in phrasing the question as he does (whether Caesar, a particular, refers to the man or the idea of Caesar). He ends arguing that it refers to the thing. Unless it is abstract. His examples of abstract versus ratio pura universals are "man is a rational animal" and "the whole is greater than the part" The latter is the only he accepts for reasoning, and his examples are all mathematical. The latter, again, only gives "probability" about concrete things.
We might recall that for Aquinas the universal is something that is attached to the essence as it exists in the mind, as an image with a likeness to many subjects. You could say Newman holds the same about his ideas corresponding to things, but where it becomes nominalist is that it becomes a mere generalization, not a universal truth, which is why we cannot know that Socrates is mortal just because he is a man and man is mortal. We have to know the "units" That is where real knowledge is for Newman.
cf. Lecture on Logic, Jan/Feb 1859

That said, I will go back and read more carefully the linked essay, lest I too readily dismissed it. I should have the time to do that sometime in 2015 (hey too much to do)....I only read snippets, and what seemed as assertions might substantiated later....

Suffice it to say that the contradictions apparent in Pater's statements from Newman (contradictions in quotes by Pater Edmund of Newman) finally led me to open his Grammar of Assent, which seems so tedious. Instead of begin at the beginning, I tried finding some distinctions at first in chapter three, but was so confused by the apparent absurdity of distinctions that I read Maritain's introduction. Maritain assures the reader that the book is about Newman's coming to grips with assent to the truths of the Faith and that most interpretations are incorrect. I then proceeded to look at chapter nine to try and figure out what illative sense might mean.

What is strange is that he doesn't really define illative sense (and why I had so much trouble trying to find definitions and distinctions earlier) until the second last page and the last sentence is quite a douzy.

If he be Aristotelian, it is in an esoteric sense only. In the chapter alone, he rejects the logic both subtly and (I believe) explicitly. He delineates also a very hard core nominalism (a la Hobbes, wherefore the word "sense")

No I actually cracked the book several times before and just closed it. I have thought I should probably look at it some time and this was the final motive.

I'll can give some whopper quotes. But I'll begin with what illative sense is: "moral instinct" or "happy augury" (or something more deliberative perhaps). That seems to be the ultimate source of illative sense as PRINCIPLES: they are founded upon this "divining". In fact illative sense seems to me to be logic as he denigrates it. HIs last sentence is "And in all these delicate questions there is constant call for the exercise of the Illative Sense." Rereading it one realizes that he is uses Newman's (that is his own specially divined) illative sense in describing aspects (not it's nature) of illative sense at the end of section two. To be PRECISE, Illative Sense seems to be logic, but especially the grasping of our assumptions and how we come by them (only secondarily and in HIS sense, does he refer to demonstration which he restricts to elements of mathematical calculus). His third section is pretty devastating (or it seems merely to tell the truth) to any ability for agreement. All reasoning is profoundly solopsic (or so he says

...... So how does such a nominalist expect anyone to understand him, especially when Newman by the end of the chapter leads us to despair even of the posibility of communication or at least agreement? It is inconsistent. More over his statement of man being self-made, isn't that another act of illative sense which he derides at the end. Or is the last sentence of the entire chapter what he is using even right here? But he says to confirm that what is certain is what me myself and I say is certain, “there is no ultimate test of truth besides the testimony born to truth BY THE MIND ITSELF”. And I am not misquoting him. These seem to be his main points. MOREOVER, he refers to Bacon as “our own English philosopher” and later refers several ways and defers to him again and again. “Knowledge is power, for it enables us to use eternal principles which we cannot alter.” And then a derisory, as I take it, comment on all matters unBaconian: “materials in due measure of proof and assent” are apposite “abundant matter for mere opinion”. And so I take it that proof and assent are merely idle speculation, as a kind of relaxing recreation if not overindulged in (but in "due measure"). To be clear, all speculation is what he is talking about here.

Section two (supposedly on the NATURE of Illative Sense), he spends mostly on "parallel" phronesis and briefly fine arts but ends outlining "respects" (or perspective?) on its "nature and its claims:
1. in itself: “one and the same in all concrete matters” ??? obscure to be sure. I really have little idea what he's talking about.
2. in definite subject-matters: some possess it some but not others and in some things but not others (historian vs. philsopher, but earlier he had a number of things to say about his kind of "phronesis")
3. in process: by a method of reasoning. But here “the elementary principle of that mathematical calculus of modern times”. Here he seems to be introducing HIS own illative sense of the ratiocinating aspect. Like Bacon, he would replace traditional logic with the new calculus. But this is never defined by Newman further, and is only mentioned here, whereas much of the rest of the time is spent diriding the blind "Illative Sense" of others it seems.
4. function and scope: there is no “ultimate test of truth and error in our inferences besides the trustworthiness of the Illative Sense that gives them its sanction.” – it is because I assent. The authority of the test is in MY ASSENT and none else

Anyways, maybe I'll clean this all up. My notes and outline are considerably long. I'll pm Pater Edmund my observations on his work.

And don't get me wrong. I really appreciate what Pater Edmund wrote. It's very good.

And just for anyone who might be outside the TAC community and reading this thread, we should make some things clear:
1. Peregrine Bonaventure is a disgruntled troll, who ought not to be directly addressed. We are not being cruel, but we have all tried to engage him in the past to no good result.
2. He raises good questions, but can't, or won't actually engage in coherent or thoughtful discourse.
3. TAC is one of the few schools in the world that, a.) really is and passes on a 'school of thought, and b.) understands what Sacred Theology is.
4.TAC does not confuse metaphysics and natural theology with sacred theology. Rather, it understands that a thorough understanding of the philosophical disciplines enable the mind to more clearly and cogently consider the truths of the faith.
5. Consequently, as a whole, its alumni do not teach things like "reason enlightens faith." Rather, the school as a whole teaches, together with the Church, that grace perfects nature, and faith perfects reason. However, that does not mean that faith supplants reason. Rather, we must have well developed reason, and then there is, as it were, more nature to be perfected.
My final direct address to Scott: I do apologize for losing my temper with you above. I do sincerely hope that you have friends and family that you can communicate with in a loving and mutually benefiting way. Your questions are good. your reasoning is poor. You ought not to insult women. That is all.

Edit: first sentence, second paragraph: "...inaccessible by discussion, seeks to undermine some 'enemy' point."

On the theses volume front (https://docs.google.com/.../1PutRC7wDJYJ1XughyMKZ.../edit...)
I've added a section for proposals for titles for the whole volume. Proposals so far:
Learning and Discipleship: Undergraduate Theses from Thomas Aquinas College
Lac Ab Uberibus Almae Matris: Undergraduate Work from a Catholic Liberal Arts College
Thomas Aquinas College Theses Volume - Google Docs
docs.google.com

on the road 7 hours. And a barn dance later. So til tomorrow. And thanks pater

hmm... Perhaps I should say something controversial.

dont worry. I am holding back on my nuclear option should be good for another 1000 comments

'Natural Science,' as it is now called, is quite good the last two years. Sophomore year is important at least, but I had a tutor poorly suited for the class, and I hated it. Freshman year Lab is a dreadful waste of time for all concerned.

Dude, I loved Fabre! I found some of those readings to be amongst the most leisurely, wonderful, contemplative readings of the whole four years.

Freshman lab is Micky Mouse pablum. And we take, what, 12 classes of fabre to demonstrate that insects aren't intelligent? Snore.

That's a beautiful defense, Catherine Ryland. I will say that I would respect the course a lot more if we read Darwin there, instead of relegating him to senior seminar.

mostly it was about fumbling with things and staring out the window and the highlight was when some doofus despite all warnings actually did ingnite "Substance D" or whatever that stuff was

!!!

I think that was the point!
I remember both loving and being bored to tears by Fabre (though not at the same time or in the same respect), and I agree with the idea of perhaps reading even a selection from Darwin freshman year -- it makes sense. But I am still grateful for having to slog through scientific articles (however outdated) like the gull mating article and the infrared snake vision article, since now I can get the gist of some scientific articles without being a trained scientist.
And it was awe-inspiring to catch a living dragonfly and see its huge jewel-like eyes and watch the light and color go out of them completely when it sadly died. You understand substantial change much better (as Lauren points out re:the de Anima) even if you have never seen a person or a larger animal die before.
I remember John Cunningham's astonishingly beautiful living-insect terrarium/bug collection and wishing I hadn't chloroformed or frozen all my bugs. I also remember being really upset when I found my bug partner had bought his quota of bugs from the TAC insect black market.
That whole section of freshman lab was one of the highlights of the four years there.
I would say that somehow that part of the curriculum also helped in understanding or accepting that some things are knowable as first principles.

now I'm wondering if Substance D gave Pater Edmund superpowers

Sophomore lab was a huge waste of time. I had AP chemistry in high school, so all the "experiments" in the lab double wide, were just poorly done imitations of what I had already known.
Phlogiston? Really? I'm wasting my time with this? Maybe it should have been called: "The slow painful process of learning the history of Chemistry - to 1800" and that would have been more accurate. Neither of the tutors I had for Fresh/Soph lab were even the slightest bit interested (it seemed).

Paul Babcock, what was it you said to Mr Berquist in that lab discussion? "It's not a #!**!@ fiction!!" ?

(re: atoms)

Liam, this thread is really good evidence that "surfing your way back to sanity" isn't possible

Mendel was in seminar when I went there. They moved him to freshman lab when I was a junior

YES!
and phlogiston

...I like thinking about measures...

...and phlogiston.

F*ck phlogiston

I agree with Catherine about the bug collection and Fabre though.

But I'm against doing Darwin Freshman year because one hasn't done the Physics and the De Anima yet.

I know I wasn't asked, but it seems to me that the question about measurement and what it means and how we know things through measures is a central theme that ran throughout the lab tutorials through the years.

I didn't surf *the web* back to sanity, Beitia!

You can't have scientific inquiry (of a natural sort) without hefty doses of measurement. Look at all the astronomers.

^^ Oh, but this is the most interesting stuff in the world. (And I haven't even begun my more recent critiques of TAC AND the magisterium.)

I think they should let the Lab program come full circle so that second semester of senior year is Mendel and Darwin and genetics.

Second semester of Freshman year could be Pascal on weight of air etc.

Or Poincare on Science and Method

Pater Edmund, I think that is the new plan. Or something like that.

That way Galilleo could be read second semester of Sophomore year, which would be fitting.

They just drastically overhauled a semester of senior or junior science - I think senior - to deal specifically with evolution and end with St. Thomas on providence ("regardless, check THIS out at the end"). Sounded like a fantastic set of readings from Darwin on out laying out issues forthrightly. Dr. Kaiser was a big part of it.

Also how do you do Einstein without electro magnetism? Einstein is also all about measurement, but unlike freshman measurement manual, reading him is worthwhile.

they dont do Goethe's light experiments, which is a huge fail

^absolutely! and Uexkull

Pater I used to push for Portmann. To no avail

At Wyoming Catholic College they read Fisher's “Mathematics of a Lady Tasting Tea”; no idea what that is, but it sounds awsome.

Dr. Kaiser also designed freshman lab, which could easily be done in 1 semester. I'll reserve judgment.

that looks great! TAC could also easily read Goethe on the nature and kinds of experiment, to great effect

I was wiser than I knew when I first said that this was the best FB thread ever.

It's not "THE GREAT MANUALS method"

HAHAHAHA

just sayin'

BLASPHEMER

yep I went there

just sayin'

literally LOL

I am now firmly on the side of the Syllabus of Errors, which I believe condemns the foul words recently uttered by JA Escalante.

Some tutors were much more contemplative and meditative about Euclid than others. Certain tutors I have heard made it through far fewer props than others, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

Although freedom of conscience of a sort is allowable, persecution of heresy of this kind is necessary for the common good.
We must race to seize power before this heretical Protestant in order to ensure the promulgation of The Truth.

I now I'm going to go pray Compline: sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram.

People who think people should be burned at the stake should be burned at the stake.

^our experience was identical, as you know

Pater, for the record, Catherine just expressed a cardinal maxim of my political theology

ah, one of TAC's great sins...the exile of Hartmann

and Joel: I would make it less an exercise in high-pressure rote memorization, and much more one of leisurely construction and contemplation

I didn't memorize a single prop. And I demonstrated them just fine. Rote memorization is not part of the TAC way.

neither did I. Learn the method of Euclid and follow it (For the record many of my demonstrations were not exactly the same as Euclids)

it certainly shouldn't be

Michael Beitia, I too often discovered variations at the board.

JA Escalante don't you mean "no true Prussian woman?"

But I rarely was allowed to demonstrate anything

Peter Fry would do that too. So amazing and depressing.

I mostly just knocked the table with my knee so the spun bottle would point at some other wretch

Apropos of nothing. If one is looking for a deal:
http://www.foxnews.com/.../21/5-best-value-rye-whiskies/...
5 best value rye whiskies
www.foxnews.com
From rich chocolate cake to a peppermint-topped concoction, you’re sure to find something to satisfy your sweet tooth this season.

I can personally recommend Whistle Pig.

True. True. As did, I.

Stockholm Syndrome for sure.

Seriously, I would like to have some kind of TAC Anonymous group to help undergrads know things like How to recognize the symptoms of depression and what to do about them. What to do when you don't want to look at another book for at least a year. What to do when encountering Thomists of a non-Lavalian stripe. (That last is a joke, but I think depression is very common. It could be that people of a melancholic bile tend to gravitate toward TAC.)

TAC depression is very common. Is it the isolation? Is it the pressure of never getting away from the coursework? It is an odd, but very real, phenomena.

I think it's the Brigadoon sense of the college. It's an intense experience, geographically isolated, and with too much of an unspoken assumption that there really isn't much truth or fellowship in seeking truth to be found outside its walls. Leaving is bound be depressing in that case

Which is absolutely untrue, that there isn't much truth or fellowship "outside".

indeed. I wasn't one to fall for TAC superstitions, but even my mind was blown when I met grad students at Cal and they turned out to be just as sharp and readerly as TAC friends

I heard a great quote about grad school the other day "where you forgo current income to forgo future income..."

I meant that in the best possible way, Joel!!!

That's funny, I didn't run into that particular brand of TACism.

Catherine Ryland: https://docs.google.com/.../1xBzrZlfGzxi5e4vjhulzIZL.../edit
Education Without Credentials - Google Docs
docs.google.com

Matthew, that sounds wonderful.

I'm a bit late on the topic of measurement, but one thing that would help Freshman Lab and Sophomore math would be to have a some observations of the basic motions of the heavens over a few months. The bit of observation we did at the beginning of Sophomore year was a joke. It's a good chance to think about how measuring works and it would make astronomy a lot more imaginable for a lot of students--perhaps it could even ensure that there would be no future debacle's like the Great Kolbeck Ptolemy Final Massacre of 2003.

What Henry Zepeda said

Henry Zepeda don't most students get that anyways while drinking heavily in the wood? It might be a bit redundant.

??

In what circumstance?

"drinking heavily in the woods"

Has this thread won the Internet yet?

I feel so privileged to have played a small role in this. Do all of us get a check or something?

*Suspected*? That's all? I have failed.

When they burn me I hope they use cedar. I love the smell of cedar.

TAC exhaustion and depression comes from lack of sacred theology. If you try to plant these seeds across the nation, you will get major blow back from sacred theology.

How many Christendom students does it take to change a light bulb?

How many Christendom students does it take to change a lightbulb?
Lightbulbs?! Wa-choo looking at our lightbulbs for? Our lightbulbs are just fine... we like 'em just the way they are, thank you very much... now why don't you just go back to where you came from.

"TAC exhaustion and depression comes from lack of sacred theology." That's funny, I have a (non-TAC) friend who thinks that TAC depression comes from the overabundance of dogmatic and doctrinaire theology found there.

Because of St. Thomas, and his Aristotelean view of the human soul -- which contended that ensoulment takes place after conception, and only a rational being could be preserved from sin -- the Dominicans were the last hold out within the Church in support of the Immaculate Conception.
In the 19th Century, Pope Pius IX, with support from a vast majority of bishops, and shortly after the vision of the Miraculous Medal which reads "O Mary, conceived without sin..." the Church promulgated the infallible doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
I think this shows the need for assent in sacred theology.

Also, how many Christendom students does it take to change a light bulb?
A: That's not really the right question to ask. Chirstendom students aren't allowed to do anything until the Magisterium tells them it's ok, and that can take centuries.

Perescott, you still haven't defined what YOU mean by sacred theology

B'tia, do you really want a definition? Or are you just asking? Pearls before swine and all... I can give you a definition that would melt your soul and help you slay dragons, but you've really got to want it..

I've only been asking you for IDK 2.5 YEARS to define what the hell you're talking about, Scottegrine....

Liam Collins- I'm guessing your dad is Sean? I just want to say that senior lab with him was unforgettable. One of my all time favorites- he is just so perfectly suited to that kind of thing. I don't know what they're changing from that class, but it would be a shame if they keep Faerie Queen but change senior lab. I'll always remember the class where your dad asked what it means to say "at the same time" and I quickly gave what I considered to be a good explanation, and he kept picking it apart and then I realized that I couldn't really define it. It was like the time in junior theology when Kolbeck said he fell out of his chair the first time he realized that, since God's essence & existence are one and the same (I'm paraphrasing quite a bit here), then when we have the beatific vision, God is literally dwelling in our minds.... it's moments like that that I like to relive when I think back to my Arcadia.

That's inaccurate. It's junior year.

Precocious.

Such madness... and schadenfreude...

Right now, everything is happening at the same time. Just a thought. I digress...

Hmm. . . I had Molly before the decline... and the order was well done. But I had her for both junior and senior math, so I can't speak to any other tutor with deficient knowledge of the subject.
I loved non-Euclidean geometry, but wish we would have read Gauss instead. Or maybe Georg Cantor... after Molly's decline it seems like there isn't much left of that tutorial

Possibly, but please don't even think about taking time away from the Ethics.

how about genus and difference? Can you do that?

Not to be picky, Nina, but it's Bueller! As in Ferris Bueller!

"To do theology - as the Magisterium understands theology - it is not sufficient merely to calculate how much religion can reasonably be expected of man and to utilize bits and pieces of the Christian tradition accordingly. Theology is born when the arbitrary judgment of reason encounters a limit, in that we discover something which we have not excogitated ourselves but which has been revealed to us."
- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology

the way it is treated? you mean, the method, or the attitudes toward it of students or tutors?

Attitudes and the framework within which it is set. Definitely should be seen as vital - more related, in fact, to life as lived by most graduates ever after than much of what student think they value more.
How many people have gone into philosophy to study the "higher things" and fizzled out? Heh. I know a lot of peeps with a Masters in Metaphysics.
But we all live with politics.

*er, I guess the hidden premise in that statement is that I always thought of seminar (for the most part) as the class where we *were* trying to connect to life lived outside and after TAC.

(I think I kind of thought of it that way too)

Catherine, be careful about engaging the troll.

It's hard for me to understand how we can have actual intellectual inquiry if we have already decided to submit our minds to things not intended to be taught definitively by very fallible people (i.e. the pope and the college of bishops not making formulaically infallible statements).

The CDF in its commentary on that paragraph states: «To this paragraph belong all those teachings – on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgement or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.18 They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with those truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error. A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore 'tuto doceri non potest'.» http://www.vatican.va/.../rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998...

And what if they contradict prior teaching? Especially when it is held by a majority of theologians as infallible. The very basis is a document whose authority is not de fide.

yeah. It silences discussion of the most urgent questions. Why not the oath against modernism? Are we not to discuss Pascendi as it relates to current magesterial "teachings"?

One of the very terms in that CDF explanation is comdemned. What does "deeper understanding" mean. An ambiguous law is not binding.

Again read carefully the Hermeneutic of continuity instruction. Can you define the terms used unambiguously? Can a submission of Faith be required of non-infallible statesments which seem to contradict prior more authoratative teaching AND all discussion of those apparent contradictions be forbidden?

Obviously it is necessary to discuss apparent contradictions. Especially apparent contradictions between teachings that require submission of faith (Unam Sanctam for instance) and those that require merely religious submission of will and intellect.

How many discussions do we have going on here at the same time?

The picture was for Lauren Ogrodnick.

The former is an act of the supernatural virtue of faith, the later is an act of the virtue of religion, a part of the virtue of justice.

It will never end.

wherefore i winked

of course fb could continue in heaven and thus it be strictly true too.

but has he so judged?

About what?

the disputes are not aired or hardly breathed.

Now I see where you go wrong.

I dont believe i make a mistake in this regard. Can you be specific? Or is this to Peregrine? I dont think I have denied the distinction though i perhaps i mistake the full scope of metaphysics.

Pater Edmund, you last asked, I believe, what things have not been judged by the pope. I must respond that in recent years, no matters of undisputed contraversies have been decided. As such, it seems we are required to hold with religious assent those that the Church has always taught or those held before. The very doctrine of whether or how doctrine can change is at issue.
Let me ask this instead. To renounce matters that demand the assent of Faith, is to renounce one's Faith. Shall I then renounce my Faith, to submit to matters that require religious submission? Moreover, am I not extended some sympathy, especially in light of Dignitatis Humanae? Does Nostra Aetate only assume good will in heretics, Jews, Muslims and even unbelievers, but none in Catholics who in no way reject the Faith? Or shall Ecumenism embrace all the former with open arms but her own faithful for “errors” unexplained have only derision and scorn? Again, the hermeneutic of continuity slams the door on any inquiry that merely happens to find discontinuity, but this is a sly and underhanded trick and I call foul. Why? Because if some of the present teachings that require mere religious assent contradict some teaching that requires by Faith (and to keep the Faith) assent of Faith, isn't it a false reasoning that only tries to “correct” the constant teaching by making it conform by hermeneutical trick to the “new” teaching?
To phrase it another way the hermeneutic of continuity demands that there be no objection: indeed it nods in favor to new teaching over established teaching making the latter conform to the former. In another way I read it as the pope saying, “Continuity, let there be continuity, there will be continuity.” As to scholastic objections, the reponse: “non disputandum est.” And actions bear this out. For Gheradini took decades before he mildly voiced his well scientificly reasoned (scholastically speaking) argument. He produced no rash judgements (of what I've read). He merely introduced questions. And yet the house that published his work in English is now SHUT DOWN. Unbelievable. Non disputandum est. And how can you or anyone know what are the contraversies or objections if they can't be voiced but AS YOU DID, merely say “hermeunetic of continuity” and discussion be damned? But you sacrifice Faith to current fad.
And as to the instruction, I'll focus on one point only. It is ambiguous. What is the hermeneutic? Is it “of reform” or “of renewal”. By making these terms apposite, the pope has nullified his own directive. For is it reform? Or is it something new? What does he mean by reform? What Pius X meant? Again, an ambiguous law is not binding. So even it were ever right to correct irreformable dogma to make it continuous with novelty, the very decree that mandates this is null for its ambiguity (and that on only one point, for other terms too are ambiguous).
Anyways, something while I work on Newman.

Sorry, I kinda guessed, but as you know I can't see Peregrine. Ironic, that invisibility was the only reason I entered this thread, and now I can't get out

Also, your thoughts about the hermeneutic of continuity are very interesting.

John, that last comment is addressed to you.

Firstly, I don't imply that Pope Benedict played an underhanded trick. It is merely the effect of the words logically and concretely (as Newman might say).

Additionally, he falsely asserted that metaphysics treats of God as a subject. This mad clear to me a great number of his problems. Because he holds this definition he needs to find a way to distinguish between metaphysics and theology. This is why he makes such a big deal about "assent to the fulness of faith." Of course we agree with him that Sacred theology requires the assent of faith, but we don't need to make such a strong distinction there. We follow Aquinas and distinguish according to formal objects. Sacred Theology alone treats of God directly. This is why the whole Summa Theologiae is Theology. Even the preambles; even the stuff that can be known by reason! Why? Because it is proceeding according to a higher light, and starting with God as its formal object.

I think you make a good point with regards to the second. I have seen this with VII. There is a tendency, because there are so few/no formal definitions in Vatican II documents to assume that every thing and every word is infallible.

Thus while criticizing those who treat Vatican II like superdogma, Benedict also elevated the same to level of infallibility, not per se, but because they cannot be criticized on account of "religious submission" of LG and the requirement of heremeneutic of (reform, of renewal in) continuity.

Yet another riddle: almost every peritus (including Ratzinger) has at some time declared discontinuity or even rupture (either triumphantly or with remorse)

Youknowwho called me a heretic for quoting Unum Sanctam and taking it seriously. But I guess that's what I get for sticking to the wrong Magisterium. I'm supposed to follow the ordinary, I guess, not the one that defines and proclaims......

I dunno. Seems like VII is treated as superdogma by almost no one.

(Though I still recommend kindness to people (including "trolls"), even if they are unkind back to you.)

Isn't that the problem though -- not even the magisterium knows what the magisterium actually includes?

Catherine Ryland,4 before the Second Renaissance of the never-ending thread (inaugurated largely by your return) I posted this with regards to the troll. You may not have seen it.
"My final direct address to Scott: I do apologize for losing my temper with you above. I do sincerely hope that you have friends and family that you can communicate with in a loving and mutually benefiting way. Your questions are good. your reasoning is poor. You ought not to insult women. That is all."

Matthew , I wish I grew up in your world! Vatican 2 was all I heard of growing up and even the Baltimore catechism was thrown out for being outdated. Then again it's usually treated as "super dogma" without actually being understood or sometimes even read.

That's not superdogma - that's simply finding an excuse for licentiousness.
Those people don't believe in such a thing as dogma, and that is not the fault of VII.
The original sin of traddies everywhere is blaming the sudden use of VII as VII's fault. Whatever it's faults, if the Church was not already as it was no one would have been for the liturgical changes that it obviously did not force on anyone - and the masses would have used VII against its abusers. Let's not pretend they did so.
In any event, it's not superdogma - most of the people you are complaining about have read less of VII than you. They aren't even very familiar with it, and they don't truly hold to it.

You can tell when this thread will be resuscitated -- when you get notification that someone is 'liking' your posts from 2 days ago...

DEFINITION OF SACRED THEOLOGY:
CRITIQUE OF THOMAS AQUINAS COLLEGE
Sacred theology is the study of divine revelation. It is more than the study of God. It is the study of what God is saying to man. Sacred theology proceeds as a science, from principles first and better known, to new knowledge, through study of its first principles, and in light of Sacred Tradition and the Sacraments of the Faith, and in the development of the Church’s doctrine and dogma.
In Catholic liberal education, sacred theology is the highest science. It begins with Wisdom. Wisdom is a supernatural virtue, that makes the soul responsive to assent to divine truths. In Catholic liberal education, Wisdom does not have a double meaning: Wisdom is not also defined as the end of natural theology or metaphysics. Wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord, which is an assent to revelation and the deposit of the Faith. It is those things which are not revealed by flesh and blood, but by “my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 16).
However, in its Charter, Thomas Aquinas College has mis-defined Wisdom, but stating that it comes through study of the great masters. It even falsely claims that papal encyclicals have asserted that wisdom comes at the end study of the Masters, rather from the beginning of the fear of the Lord, where it says that “papal encyclicals made it plain that the perennial wisdom was to be studied through the works of the great masters…”
Indeed, Thomas Aquinas College seems to admit that its version of Wisdom is incomplete when it says in its charter that “metaphysics, or first philosophy, is also an essential part of liberal education, because it is necessary for the full development of theology.”
However, metaphysics is not necessary for the full development of sacred theology. But assent to divine revelation is, and this is what is missing in the curriculum at Thomas Aquinas College.
In fact, the few doctrines that Thomas Aquinas College teach in its curriculum are rarely, if ever, demonstrative of the role of theological Wisdom and the Magisterium in the development of the doctrine.
As a matter of Faith, sacred theology is supported by numerous infallible teachings of the Church, including:
That man has the gift of the sacred science by infusion of grace; that this grace is infused in man prior to an act of free will; that the vision of God transcends natural cognition; that even God’s existence is an object of supernatural faith, not merely reason; and that it is impossible without grace to study the faith and come to the correct conclusions.
It is wholly inadequate for a Catholic college to exclude sacred theology from its curriculum, especially when it proposes to be the completion of liberal education.
Yet Thomas Aquinas College imposes its version of natural theology into the place of sacred theology when it makes its unfounded claim that “theology completes and perfects the intellectual life of a free man.” In proper context, the charter of the college is speaking of metaphysics when it uses the word “theology” in the preceding quote. It claims then that this type of Catholic education presents “liberal education in its fullness.”
This is a false claim; for by its own admission the college admits that it does not present theology in its fullness; while again falsely claiming that its version of metaphysics is necessary for the completion of the study of sacred theology. Both of these claims are false. For sacred theology begins with assent to divinely revealed principles revealed by grace and imparted by Wisdom.

We finally have a definition on the table.

Moreover, Matthew, your barb misses the mark. I dont think i have quoted one text. Pascendi, i have refered to most and as a whole, but that and the oath as well as its promulgation and Lamentabile Sana are not like others. Their roar still reechoes and the mere mention causes sneers or knees to quake. Not your typical papal decree of the last 500 years. EDIT: no quote of a pre vii text.

I don't think I've known others who have treated VII as a super dogma in itself, but it begins to take that appearance when they act dismissive to the previous 1900+ years of the Church's teachings and existence.

It's like trying to read Lumen Gentium without having read Mystici Corporis. Not freakin' possible.

So... not having attended TAC (unless you count those three classes I sat in on about 10 or 11 years ago), I can't help but interject, because I teach class tomorrow evening and have a dissertation to write, so, I need pointless procrastination. Plus this thread has popped up in my feed every day for the last however long and yada yada yada.
I agree that TAC ought to have more education in sacred theology. I think that's a good thing, though one which is understandably difficult to incorporate into a great books curriculum. I am not proposing any solution.
But, this last diatribe by Peregrine is, well, just wrong, at least according to St. Thomas. Wisdom is manifold. We talk about the wisdom with regard to practical matters, i.e., prudence (In Nic. Eth., lib. VI, lec.6-10); we talk about wisdom as a knowledge of the highest principles of reasoning about matters proportionate to human understanding (ibid., lec.5-6); we talk about wisdom as a gift of the Holy Spirit infused by grace, by which man judges rightly through inclination, and we talk about wisdom as a principle of judgment through knowledge, as the whole who has attained knowledge of highest principles and their application to further knowledge through some study (ST Ia q.1, a.6, ad.3),
Moreover, Thomas states repeatedly in the Summa Contra Gentiles that a study of the things of earth, of the works of creation, is useful and in some ways even necessary for understanding the things of faith (e.g., SCG I, c.7-8, II, c.2-4).
Consider: if there are errors which seem to invalidate the teaching of sacred theology which can be overcome only by a systematic development of metaphysics, then, in the realm of intellectual development, is not a rightly-considered metaphysics necessary for the teaching of sacred theology?
I hope I'm not butting in too much... I just hate seeing Thomas misappropriated.

(Regarding supercouncil status in deed:) and my many attempts at rephrasing just how this is done by means of the "hermeneutic of continuity"? But more, it makes vii the reference point for all discussion as vii indirectly touches all matters of faith (often directly too).

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you all sputtering. I just wanted to convey the Church's definition of sacred theology. I didn't write any of the errors that are in the Charter of Thomas Aquinas College. So you can't really blame me for anything. Thanks and may God bless you.

and no one is sputtering, more like TLDR

Off topic, but appropriate http://www.openculture.com/.../philosophy-referee-hand...
Philosophy Referee Hand Signals
www.openculture.com
The next time you're presiding over an intense philosophical debate, feel free to use these hand signals to referee things. Devised by philosophy prof Landon Schurtz, these hand signals were jokingly meant to be used at APA (American Philosophy Association) conferences.

Before too much longer, though I don't want to derail anything in the interesting magisterium discussion, I would say this: obviously TAC is not "the fulness of liberal education" or whatever that quote was -- perhaps that's admissions office hyperbole. For one thing, that's not possible in four years. It's true that there is a profound and admirable attempt to have students follow a curriculum with elements from the trivium and quadrivium, and then going on to study natural and metaphysical sciences.
Furthermore there's not even a pretense that TAC gives a complete education in all the branches of theology. No one there would even claim that. It's not supposed to do this. It may give you an amazing jumpstart (since you've read some scripture and a bunch of church fathers/doctors/documents), but that's it.
Almost any tutor you speak with will tell you that TAC only tries to be "a good beginning". They say (well, Mr. Collins has said), that we should really cover the same material in 8 years that is attempted to be covered in 4, only no one would come. Though really you could cover it for 80, or 800 years, and still not get to the bottom of it all. If you want to specialize in any of the sciences, divine or otherwise, you better immerse yourself in their pursuit for the rest of your life.

The initial claim (at the beginning of the never-ending thread) was that this was the only school of undergraduates where every single student in the student body was required to read vast sums of Aquinas and Aristotle. That's it.
That claim does not mean there is not another department in some undergraduate program that reads more Aquinas or Aristotle (that is, there might be some school that DOES read more), though that seems unlikely. For many people that's not even a desirable goal.

Catherine has totally settled the initial question. Really.

I don't have one; but you all have fun!

Wow, I step away for a couple of days, and a thousand new comments show up (which I have now finished reading) . . . 400 more till 2000.

I think the first part is important because oftentimes the public who hears you contradict authoritative teachings don't distinguish the various degrees of authority with which the Church speaks and, furthermore, are usually not well-educated enough to judge whether you have reasonable grounds for disagreement.
The second part is merely acknowledging the shakiness of human reason.

We agree to agree, except when we don't...
Protestants agree to disagree, except when they don't...

That's a better way of saying what I was trying to say.

However, Catherine's settling of the initial question has also been tried before. It doesn't answer Pere-whatever's objections. Frankly, I think the greatest problem with his critique is his misunderstanding of "wisdom" - it's various meanings and places, and his misapplication of it

you settled it in principle. practice will prove to be another thing, I'm sure

transfinite.. have you studied your Georg Cantor? Is it aleph-null or greater?

bwahahahahaha.... I forgot, the program with a huge amount of math doesn't study math....

then what the hell does it pretend to teach? Perescott? You seem to know everything...

oh yeah... I forgot

But really the only reason they (we) study mathematics at all is because Plato says in the Republic that mathematics is a necessary preparation for the philosopher. Or I think he says something like that. (Edit: this is unfair -- they also study mathematics for its own sake and contemplation of the beautiful and all that too.)

Which we don't study like nice little magisterium-bots, thank heavens. We're allowed to question what it means, including what the magisterium itself means. (Though I guess we probably are magisterium-bots in the end. I don't know.)

“The mathematician does not study pure mathematics because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it and he delights in it because it is beautiful.”
― Jules Henri Poincaré
stick that in your transcendental pipe and smoke it, Peterson!

^ isn't that called pot?

Where in the midwest are you? We call it "pot" in WI.

"magisterium-bot"

I asked Tom Sundaram a legalistic question recently, and answered as the self-dubbed LEGALISM BOT.

is transcendental tobacco "magisterium-pot"?

Thomas Aquinas College states in its Charter that the metaphysics it proposes "is necessary" for the "full development of theology." This is false pretense. The contrary is true. In fact, revelation and assent to divinely revealed truths is what is necessary to the full development of theology. This is what the Church teaches, de Fide. So, again, the college has it completely backwards.

The college itself, in its Charter, defines metaphysics as knowledge of God which is reasoned to, then states that this kind of knowledge is "necessary for the full development of theology." This statement is false, and contrary to the Church's infallible dogma on supernatural revelation in the order of knowledge.
I am not making this up as I go along. This is the argument that the college puts forward. And it is a false pretense.
So what does it matter if someone reads more Aristotle and Thomas than another, if they are in material heresy?

The claim the college is making is that metaphysics is necessary for the full development of theology; namely, sacred theology, theology which proceeds from revelation. This false claim is a material heresy. The college defines metaphysics specifically as that science which leads to knowledge of God by natural reason. Then the college says that this metaphysics is NECESSARY for the full development of theology. This is false. This is heresy. This runs counter to the Church's infallible teaching on grace. Metaphysics is no way necessary for the development of sacred theology or for a believer to possess wisdom without qualification. On the contrary, as the Church teaches, revelation is necessary for the perfection of reason.
"But, as theology itself teaches, there is a knowledge of God and divine things which proceeds in the natural light of human reason. This knowledge, traditionally named metaphysics, or first philosophy, is also an essential part of liberal education, because it is necessary for the full development of theology." (Thomas Aquinas College, Founding and Governing Document; VII. Liberal Education, Its Parts and the Order Among Them; para. 7)

Thomas Aquinas College also employs a hard and heavy interpretation of doctrine. Doctrine is used at Thomas Aquinas College to support this material heresy that metaphysics is necessary for the full development of sacred theology. This gives the wrong impression of theology and the Faith. Doctrine properly understood leads to human freedom. The way it is employed at Thomas Aquinas College leads to limitations of being truly Catholic. So, what is the point of reading the most Aristotle and Thomas of you get the Faith wrong?

Material heresy is actually pretty common. What's remarkable here is that the founders of Thomas Aquinas College actually believed that metaphysics is NECESSARY to the full development of sacred theology, and that you don't see this. This is a very basic blunder, and contrary to the Church's de fidei teaching on grace, revelation and the relationship between Faith and reason.

Peregrine I have answered you precisely, and you simply repeat your assertions without answering my argument or attending my distinctions. This isn't looking good for your case.

Who said that?

More heresy:
"Christendom College acknowledges in its curriculum the essential role played by St. Thomas Aquinas in Catholic theology. Courses in philosophy and theology are taught according to the spirit, method, and principles of the Common Doctor."

"86-credit-hour core curriculum, ordered by Thomistic wisdom within a historical matrix"
Heresy
"Catholic Theology and Thomist Philosophy play a central role"

that is not a pat denial- that is an argument based on a distinction, and you have ignored both

Man, I used to feel shitty about going to Franciscan, cause we didn't even try to pretend like we had rigour and weren't very clever or bright, but this thread has me feeling pretty good about it now, all things considered.

Peterson: the quotation you cite does not appear to be a material heresy. However, TAC claims, in its Charter (Blue Book), cited above, that metaphysics is necessary for the full development of theology. This is heresy. The Church teaches de fide (infallibly) the opposite.
JA Escalante: you are adding heresy to heresy now. Metaphysics is not necessary for the full articulation of sacred theology, revelation or Wisdom, and by claiming that metaphysics was necessary to the Church's infallible teaching from Nicea, you are really showing what you lack. Again, this is false. And you are beginning to sound completely arrogrant here, which is a clear effect of your flawed education. So I will wish you a good night sleep.
Again, material heresy is common, and when you claim that metaphysics was necessary for the full articulation of doctrine at Nicea, you really are in the realm of material heresy.

This is sad.

oh dear

The idea that theology doesn't presuppose philosophy in some way to some extent is asinine. Grace presupposes nature. First in the natural, then in the supernatural.
Revelation speaks through what is natural. It speaks via human beings who have reason and live within nature. The study of God ceases to be study for you - it ceases to be possible. What you suggest is that somehow theology is it's own universe - no need for a handmaid - not for humans, I suppose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIDMhwT6srI
"What are the Roots of the Distinction between Theology and Philosophy?"
Professor Jean-Luc Marion explored the supposed conflict between philosophy and theology in light of the present situation of philosophy -- that of the end o...

Although I believe Peregrine Scott Wineberg has been calling all of St Thomas metaphysics. Which is just dumb.

Which?

That I have been calling all of St. Thomas metaphysics?

Oh look, the traditional Catholic Encyclopedia is heretical!
"The nature of metaphysics determines its essential and intimate relation to theology. Theology, it need hardly be said, derives its conclusions from premises which are revealed, and in so far as it does this it rises above all schools of philosophy or metaphysics. At the same time, it is a human science, and, as such, it must formulate its premises in exact terminology and must employ processes of human reasoning in attaining its conclusions. For this, it depends on metaphysics. Sometimes, indeed, as when it deals with the supernatural mysteries of faith, theology acknowledges that metaphysical conceptions are inadequate and metaphysical formulae incompetent to express the truths discussed. Nevertheless, if theology had no metaphysical formularies to rely upon, it could neither express its premises nor deduce its conclusion in a scientific manner. "

Not just good but necessary.

Sam Rocha - so while you FUers were speaking in tongues and skipping class in favor of cooing electric koolaid Jesus rawk, Peregrine and friends were making sure they swore that Lincoln was an evil man on a bible wrapped in the confederate flag so they would be allowed to receive communion.
Meanwhile, at Thomas Aquinas College...

JA, the nature of metaphysics determining its nature from sacred theology means that grace perfects nature. The Charter of the college is not sayinbg this. It is saying the opposite.
You guys seem to be in apoplexy. Sorry.

"At the same time, it is a human science, and, as such, it must formulate its premises in exact terminology and must employ processes of human reasoning in attaining its conclusions. For this, it depends on metaphysics.":

that thing had an imprimatur and nihil obstat

So we are back to studying St Thomas just isn't enough.

Depending on is not the same thing necessistating.

No, Jody, it's more about what the Church teaches as sacred theology, not Thomas' theology. Thomas erred. The Church does not.

Metaphysics is not necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology. Revelation is. This quote reveals the TAC skew, its material heresy.

So, if you believe that Nicea may have depended on a western metaphysics, that is fine. But if you believe that metaphysics is necessary for what the Church teaches at Nicea, and in its Councils and in Her infallible teachings, and in its theology, and in the sacred theology of the Church, then you are a material heretic. This is a false doctrine of Thomas Aquinas College. And it is simply amazing the founders got this wrong.

If you believe in the false doctrine that metaphysics is necessary for the fulfillment of theology, you should feel awkward.

Sam Rocha: I'm beyond awkward. A jaded face in Zuckerberg's Book of life.

And then there's THAT.

I saw this thread had exploded, speculated how it got that way, and it would seem I was right. LOL.

Sam, Dude, you seem like a really malformed character. I'll pray for you.

I'm just here for the LOL's.

Recap: material heresy revealed in TAC Charter which states that philosophy is necessary for the completion of sacred theology; in other words, if you want to study sacred theology, you better go to TAC. TAC apologists grow apoplectic.

Aw, shucks...

So can we safely assume we all need real hobbies? I recommend rock climbing.

Ummmm at least one accredited institution says I am.

For hobbies, I think going to a Catholic college that actually teaches what the Church teaches is a great place to start.

It's far less ridiculous

Again -- the whole of the church's hierarchy has not only turned a blind eye to the 'heresy factory' that is know as TAC but it actually endorses and supports it. We could list the cardinals and bishops. My own among them.

Molanism?

But seriously, Peregrine, what giant piece of work are you procrastinating on? I got this grant to write that I'd rather gargle broken glass than do and this is doing the trick. I can't begin to imagine what you're staying away from? Mother-in-law in town?

Sorry Molinism. Thanks siri

will face the hordes of Thomas Aquinas College grads...ALONE...

Me, and the elephant in the room.

So Matthew what are you avoiding tonight?

My wife is reading over the job app I just wrote in political theory and I'm writing notes on a documentary proposal re LA political corruption

No -- according to you Scott PB, no one bishop, no cardinal -- but you alone are the voice of the Church.

Don't worry, I doubt I will get the job.

Jody, you should study the Faith a bit more. You would see the falacy behind the statement that rational science is necessary for sacred theology. Sacred theology is reasonable, but it is necessary for an accurate metaphysics, not the other way around. This is what the Church teaches infallibly.

Did I miss a meeting regarding classical antiquity and patristics? Damn. I *always* miss that meeting.

Ok Pere, can I call you Pere? We're all mad here. Haven't you heard?

Sam you have never seen me in a pub. Don't talk nonsense

Sam Rocha come to Berkeley and I will vindicate the TAC pub spirit for you

So, Thomas Aquinas College, in regards to Faith and Reason, teaches the exact opposite of what the Church teaches, and your response is there's been a misunderstanding... and that I'm a troll. OK, that's insane, but best regards to you all.

Sure. File a complaint with Cardinal Burke. He spoke there so I'm sure he has the address.

I don't think they ever had a show there Sam. You could play it at Steckle though. That could work.

No, no, the true 4-year TACers will bring the book and the pillow. They might even share.

I guess I know enough of my Faith to be hired to work at the diocesan and parish level. But my bishop sounds like he falls under Peregrine's definition of 'heretic'.

Yes Emily -- exactly. We need a language.

Dude Jody no worries. It's not damnable if you didn't receive a coherent explanation of why. Worst case is material, tops.

We're at 1,891 -- I'm sure we can make 2000 before bed.

What you don't understand, Peregrine, is the TAC is actually an acronym for Toots Apes and Cheese, and its function it to slowly brew minds into leather flower pots, with the little holes in the bottom so excess water can drain out. Now, why, sir, are you quoting the lost booklets of Wittgenstein? I may switch to your side if that's intentional. GEM Anscombe anyone? A tart, perhaps?

Will someone please do a statistical analysis of the times that Peregine has said good bye in this thread?

I liked Anscombe. She has thoughts.

I like people with thoughts. Darn that liberal education

I will miss this thread.

Philosophy of Education at UBC?? Good Lord!

I'll miss you, metaphysically first, then theologically -- but never biblically -- Peregrine.

My syllabus of ERRORS, of course.

Well Sam those who can do. But as you are teaching education isn't that ironic?

Is metaphysics necessary to the fulfillment of the philosophy of education at UBC, or does it not even depend on it?

But you have both. And that is something.

Does UBC mean University Before Metaphysics?

No that's an M

Jody, you ought to come to my show at Regent College this week, seriously...

Vancouver is tragically beautiful. There are no theologians in Vancouver.

So does Peregrine know you or was he stalking you Sam?

Just sticking my head in here to make sure things aren't totally crazy.

Stalking.

ah come on. You gave us more credit than that. We have become a heretic factory

"A breeding ground of heresy."

We should probably look at what we mean by "necessary." It seems to me, Peregrine, that JA Escalante has already given argument for the necessity of metaphysics in theology. Is water "necessary" for a fish? I think you're taking one sense of necessity and thinking it means something we're not saying.

Dang, Vancouver is the anchor for the Catholic Church in Canada. We are orthodox. Not learned. But orthodox.

No worries Sam, I do not think God holds UBC to the same standards as TAC. After all, they read more Aristotle than anyone.

Whew! Thanks man! I was pretty worried about that.

Andrews Well the alum are proficient breeders, good to know they're squeezing heresies in the with all the babies.

Oh good, it even has ullustrations.

Or read the book on education by the "heretic" (according to Peregrine Scott) Archbishop J Michael Miller: http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Sees-Teaching.../dp/1933184205
The Holy See's Teaching on Catholic Schools
www.amazon.com
This book clearly explains what our Catholic schools should be -- and offers you practical advice on how to judge whether they are! At a conference at Catholic University in the Fall of 2005, Archbishop J. Michael Miller, the man responsible for Catholic education around the world, distilled for ...

Jody, for the record, I never called your bishop a heretic. That's not even funny.

My children are, presently, red-blooded pagans, reading Homer, Norse myths, and Tolkien. Even Lewis is too soggy a Christian cracker for their taste.

Sam, I will pray for your children. You must teach them Faith. Teach them about Christ, as a person

Sam -- do you homeschool?

It's VERY complicated.

Jody, that's not what I said. I said if he endorsed the college, that still does not take away from the fact that the college is wrong and in material heresy about Faith and Reason. This does not mean he is a heretic, and I never said he was, you silly girl.

Ah, yes and no. You must have gone to TAC Sam.

Rarely affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish.

I'll pray for your computer. I hope it keeps running. We need you.

Who do you pray to Sam?

that this has gone on too darn long

BTW, Sam, have you done the Grouse grind?

Poor Emily. Did you have to read Twilight?

Anthony Hopkins did not. Did he?

It's totes on the webs

25 and counting. Does the ball drop?

It depends what you mean the term 'pray.' But I won't be obtuse, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, I pray to God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, the saints, Mary, my dead relatives, Cervantes and Beatrice, trees, Francis and so on...

I didn't know they had Catholics at UBC.

I have no idea what the Grouse Grind is. Sorry.

Don't you know we're EVERYWHERE!?

Uh oh.

Edward -- you finally got it.

Blue Book (add that to the Index)

I also nominate Steubenville, since I'm living here.

Wait, are we going to have Y2K problems when we hit 2,000??

He got bored and took a tour

Blue book says...

We're at 2000 -- you all have to go to bed now!

Lovely talk.

I'M GOING FOR Y3K!!

SO proud.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M
Kool & The Gang - Celebration
Music video by Kool & The Gang performing Celebration. (C) 1980 The Island Def Jam Music Group

So anyways

Wait! You didn't get the balloons and confetti? Update your app.

Necessary can be said in may ways. Scott doesn't get that.

ah. I'm going to bed… 2000 was my goal.

I'm going to pour myself a glass of Maker's right after I wash my hands in a Pilate-like manner.

I meant at Ave

I do get that Jody. It's just that it can't be said that way in the case of metaphysics and revelation/sacred theology. That's heresy. The Church made that clear in the 1700s. You don't know what you talk about.

Sacred theo is really a poetry Sam. A true myth. There, how's that?

I love Gnocchi.

John of the Cross ftw!

Sacred theo is a poetry that melts metaphysics and gets it right.

We could start a great restaurant. Thus solving the liberal arts employment issue

Metaphysical Melting Mushrooms

Let's get metaphysical?

Ain't no party like a metaphysical party...

Hey, I made some Augustinian soul music...

I think Marina is a weird name. It sounds like a place where you park your boat.

And a mermaid who died

Oh, that's sad. Sorry.

I feel like you just changed clothes, Peregrine. Nice new outfit.

No!

She's a Vietnamese martyr too

Thanks Sam, it's my UBC attire.

Right on. Pretty casual here I'm noticing. (We just moved here over a month ago.)

Is UBC really 100 miles wide?

I grew up in West Van, and I've never told anyone that before.

So I'm siting in West Van.

Sam, are you related to the Rochas from Weslaco, TX?

Are we talking necessity and sufficiency?

Does it depend?

Not necessarily.

In what sense is metaphysics necessary for the full development of sacred theology, when the Church teaches that only revelation is?

Metaphysics means the rational study of God. Full development means for it to become a complete science. Sacred theology means the science of revealed truths, revealed by God as true, which the Church teaches under its authority.

Isn't the metaphysics in God as knower?

I don't care what it *is*, I just want to understand what Peregrine means when he uses those terms.

Yeah, shut up, JA.

oh such charity!

Sam, science means how we understand something with certainty. Metaphysics proceeds with reason. Sacred theology proceeds with revelation and assent by faith.

Yeah, I was joking. Now shut up. (Joking.)

I might just go strum a shitty P&W tune on my cheap guitar now...

But theology is not fact like an organism, nor a poem

Well, it seems to me it is not necessary, because the Church says it is not. But I can see why TAC says it is, because it wants to play up the rational side of the Faith, because of the ideology of its founders. The trouble is, the Faith and sacred theology is in no way dependent on metaphysics, but the other way around. The Church has several doctrines on this. No big deal, it just explain why TAC grads believe they are so smart.

I don't like similes, either. They are not very helpful in this sort of talk.

I love you like a love song

But we can know Natural Theology

Peregrine will you ever address the propositions in the CE

I mean someone can. I think I still take God's existence on faith. But I think Mr Berquist knew it.

Aha! So metaphysics = nat theology, but you distinguish that from sacred theology. Okay, but why?

i did above

DO IT AGAIN!!!

Peregrine keeps dodging it

Well I thought it was just for fools like me who were too thick to get it

So, would you say that reading the Western Canon in chronological order is heresy?

Catherine:
"The nature of metaphysics determines its essential and intimate relation to theology. Theology, it need hardly be said, derives its conclusions from premises which are revealed, and in so far as it does this it rises above all schools of philosophy or metaphysics. At the same time, it is a human science, and, as such, it must formulate its premises in exact terminology and must employ processes of human reasoning in attaining its conclusions. For this, it depends on metaphysics. Sometimes, indeed, as when it deals with the supernatural mysteries of faith, theology acknowledges that metaphysical conceptions are inadequate and metaphysical formulae incompetent to express the truths discussed. Nevertheless, if theology had no metaphysical formularies to rely upon, it could neither express its premises nor deduce its conclusion in a scientific manner. "

But as far as I know metaphysics technically does not have God as its proper object.

Cool. Sort of like psychoanalysis, eh?

Catherine, the proper object of metaphysics is God.

JA, I'm not talking to you anymore.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10226a.htm
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Metaphysics
www.newadvent.org
That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge

It can depend, without necessity.

Does a fish depend on water to survive? Can we say water is necessary for its survival?

We can say it is necessary for its survival, but not for its being. That's the point.

Yes.

"...Consequently, it must be the office of one and the same science to consider separate substances and being- in-general (ens commune) which is the genus of which the separate substances mentioned above are the common and universal causes.... For the subject of a science is the genus whose causes and properties we seek, and not the causes themselves of the particular genus studied, because the knowledge of the causes of some genus is the goal to which the investigation of the science attains."—Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, prooemium

*drops mic*

Sacred theology, on the other hand, is God speaking to man, telling man certain mysteries about the faith.

You should read Plato, dude. In Attic Greek. That is sacred theology.

Well also God-Man talking to man telling us about God and man

Marina, yes.

Being as being is not God. If it were God, then Aristotle would not admit to there being 47 separate substances.

Sam stop being a heretic

"Catherine, yes. That is God" But that's not what you start with in metaphysics. You begin by studying different aspects (properties, whatever) of being and you only eventually reach God at the very end.

"Moreover, philosophy is indispensable for theological formation. “Theology in fact has always needed and still needs philosophy’s contribution.”[19] By helping to deepen the revealed Word of God, with its character of transcendent and universal truth, philosophy avoids stopping at the level of religious experience. It has rightly been observed that “the crisis of postconciliar theology is, in large part, the crisis of philosophical foundations […]. When philosophical foundations are not clarified, theology loses its footing."

Metaphysics is absolutely philosophy, and not really theology, except in a sneaky way. Or am I being a heretic?

Thank you again JA for the scintilating demonstration.

No metaphysics is also called natural theology. Because it studies God as being.

Well God is being I mean sure. But that missed the point

Catherine, I don't think heretics ask if they are being heretical, so I think that means you are not a heretic. Do you float?

Well at least someone isn't. #hopeyet

OK, catherine, you study God as God when God tells you something more than what you can know about him by reason. But these heretics are saying that what you know of Him by reason is necessary to the fulfillment of what God tells you about Him. Which is false.

Well, anything you know, you know with your reason, right?

Well, I was in a bar one night talking about metaphysics and that's how I met my wife.

Is she a heretic?

Please tell me you used a metaphysics pick up line

I used metaphysics as I pick up line. We have since brought six rational animals into existence.

Well good. The world must be peopled.

I believe it's from a movie that was directed and filmed in England by a group of comedians.

"What’s a nice girl like you doing in a possible world like this?”"

No, it was more like, "how would you like to exist together at my place."

That's correct; reason is in man; but when we know by reason, this is using the word differently. When we know in faith, it is reasonable, because of reason in man, used in the primary sense. But this is not what TAC is saying. TAC is saying that unless you reason to God first, then you cannot really have the fullness of knowing God by faith. This is false.

No

In that sense, reason is necessary, but that is not the sense that TAC uses the word. For that would just be saying that man is rational.

Yes, I think it is that too. Same with some other colleges.

We should be Catholics first, alumnists second.

TAC nowhere says that theology is a partim/partim relation of revelation and metaphysics. It does say that metaphysics is necessary for its full development, in the sense of doctrinal articulation. So does the Catholic Encyc, and the Decree quoted above.

zzzZZZzzz

Catherine, the TAC founders were reacting to those whom they felt were not emphasising the rational aspects of the faith enough. So it seems clear the overplayed their hand, when they state that metaphysics is necessary to sacred theology. If you take metaphysics completely away, you still have sacred theology.

JA, TAC never says that metaphysics is necessary in the sense of doctrinal articulation. And the Church never says this either. You are just making it up because you cannot accept the facts. The Church says that sacred theology, Faith and revelation can exist without metaphysics, and that the former are necessary to perfect and fulfill reason. TAC has it completely wrong, and you are unable to accept this.

oh, Peregrine.

Daniel, I am not a troll. Just look at your statement: "Metaphysics is necessary to have the fulness of Sacred Doctrine because grace perfects nature." That makes no sense. If grace perfects nature, then revelation is necessary for metaphysics. This is what the Catholic Church teaches. TAC teaches the opposite.

At this rate, Peregrine, I don't think you are a troll. A troll is you. You have set the bar to another level and for that I commend you.

JA, you did admit you were heretical in relation to the RC Church. And I knew to expect plenty of absurd objections when I posted doctrinal errors in TAC's Charter.

Please let's talk about analogy.

So, Catherine, metaphysics only treats of the divine as principles of the subject.

And it treats of God in this way, as a science that proceeds by reason, not by belief.

Now TAC asserts that metaphysics is necessary to fulfill the sacred. This is false. The Church confutes that in Her dogmas.

That is the question my friend.

This is what we need to distinguish metaphysics formally from Sacred Doctrine. Because Sacred Doctrine ttreats of the Divine directly. This is why we start theology, formally, with a consideration of God himself. In The Summa Thomas takes up some questions that can be known by metaphysics, but they can only be known with great difficulty and not much clarity, but Sacred Doctrine allows us to consider being not simply in the mode of learning but in the proper mode of being.

i.e. start with GOd.

In no way is it necessary.

In NO WAY is it necessary. This is what the Church teaches.
It is absolutely necessary, is what the college claims.

Therefore, metaphysics is necessary to have the fullness of Sacred Doctrine.

As in, sacred theology is necessary to metaphysics, because without it, it would not be in any way useful.

No that isn't the only sense of necessity. Which has been said maybe a thousand times.

Will you puh-lease answer the question. I'm about to go full blown teen angst here.

What is the question? How does the Church use necessary? How does TAC use necessary?

Ok. How do you know that this is the sense meant, if there are many senses? It seems this requires us to go back to the words and tease out the meaning therein present, not the meaning any of us wants to impose. The words can speak for themselves. If they use the word necessity and there is a charitable interpretation, perhaps we should consider the possibility that the founders, whom are all good men as far as any can tell, noting that God looks at the heart, meant it in that sense.

Goodnight, Irene.

I think Daniel is saying that when we hold things by faith, it is just as certain as if we held them by reason, or even more so. Is that righ, Daniel?

The troll either un-intentionally or intentionally misreads and misleads.
Marina, try not to engage him.

[Okay, some people are just not as far along as others (including me). It would help if we all stopped calling each other heretics and trolls, though of course I did this too, partly jokingly.]

I guess that would take the fun out of everything for everyone though.

Peregrine, does this sound right?: God reveals himself to us. That revelation is what we study in sacred theology.
But we can also know things about God through natural reason (in a very limited way).
If you agree with that, as you seem to, wouldn't you say that our study of God would be missing a piece if we did not pay attention BOTH to how we know God through revelation, AND how we can know him through reason?

So that's all that necessary means in this case. Not that you NEED to read Aristotle's metaphysics and understand everything he said about oneness and being etc. to know what God has revealed about himself.

[You can all go back to name-calling when I go deal with my insomnia elsewhere.]

I hope he can here what you are saying, Catherine. The same has been said to him before and to no avail.

I thought you were too! Just checking in.

Perhaps. This same argument has occurred on various threads before.

Which, finally, is what is important.

And to be clear, I think the questions posed by Scott are good questions. I just never have success in engaging him beyond the initial question.

I want to get back to John Ruplinger's questions above though. John R: I think a good example of a "hermeneutic of reform in continuity" is Tom Pink's reading of Dignitatis Humanae. Pink shows how there is "continuity and discontinuity at different levels." The continuity is at the level of principles. As Pink shows, the Church has always held that the state has no native right to coerce in matters of religion, that the Church does have this right over the baptized, and that the Church can use the state as a secular arm to do this. The discontinuity is at the level of discipline; the Church in DH decides _as a matter of discipline_ to not make use of a secular arm. See: https://www.academia.edu/.../What_is_the_Catholic...
and:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/.../on-religious-liberty...
It seems to me that there is nothing arbitrary in this; it is not a trick to impose Pink's own private opinion on the teachings of the Church, it is really an attempt to understand those teachings and their development.

Oh my goodness, you really broke 2000... nice work kids.

Since so much of revelation was revealed by Aristotle, we therefore hold that metaphysics is necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology. The supernatural comes from the natural. Revelation comes from reason. God comes from man.

I will never forgive any of you for making me catch up on 400 comments.
Let's try a new way of reformulating the same old crap:
To study sacred theology, the Church, in her Extraordinary Magisterium recommends studying St. Thomas.
St. Thomas can't be studied in a vacuum.
Therefore, one needs to study that which St. Thomas's theology requires.
Therefore one should study metaphysics.
But one can't study metaphysics in a vacuum.
Therefore one must study natural theology, and philosophy.
and we have just deduced the TAC curriculum backwards.
Heresy....

you keep insisting that.... but you have no evidence, other than Pope Perescott's pronouncement.

No, Daniel, he is saying that TAC and the founders and the grads, and the people who only went for two years but can make an actual ARGUMENT (I'm looking at you Escalante) claim that reason alone is sufficient.
It is, for the nth time, a straw man

Catherine Ryland has guilted me into addressing the madness again.

Says who? Were you there polling people?

Does faith even make sense without reason?

Perescott, when he's not trollin' he's pollin'

The study of Sacred Theology is not necessary in order to be saved.

to go back to what Peregrott just wrote "reason is necessary for the fulfillment of Faith" is totally wrong. Reason is necessary for the scientific explanation of the faith. This would only be a problem if someone thought that Fulfillment=scientific explanation

How do you address heresies without reason?

I also really like how PE quoted Pope John Paul II's words from Fides et Ratio: "Without philosophy's contribution, it would in fact be impossible to discuss theological issues such as, for example, the use of language to speak about God, the personal relations within the Trinity, God's creative activity in the world, the relationship between God and man, or Christ's identity as true God and true man. This is no less true of the different themes of moral theology, which employ concepts such as the moral law, conscience, freedom, personal responsibility and guilt, which are in part defined by philosophical ethics. It is necessary therefore that the mind of the believer acquire a natural, consistent and true knowledge of created realities—the world and man himself—which are also the object of divine Revelation. Still more, reason must be able to articulate this knowledge in concept and argument. Speculative dogmatic theology thus presupposes and implies a philosophy of the human being, the world and, more radically, of being, which has objective truth as its foundation." — Pope St John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 66.

(purely parenthetically - I'm still hoping for perfection)

now that's just silly Daniel, can't you see I just posted that?

of course Peretroll Bonamagisterium would simply read the quote to say that TAC is a hotbed (flowerbed?) of heresy because TAC thinks reason is sufficient

Sure, philosophy aids in the articulation of revelation, just as good grammar does. But sacred theology is fulfilled alone by revelation, and in no way depends on metaphysics. In fact, metaphysics would be impossible without revelation. All this is true, unless you go to TAC, then you believe revelation and Faith comes from Aristotle.

how do you jive what you just wrote with the 5 times cited encyclical? (not the jerk part, I'll grant you that)

"Philosophy....of being" = metaphysics

So, Fides et Ratio is good counsel, but TAC goes off the deep end.

So you

maybe I figured it out.
"Now, Lumen Fidei teaches that the act of love is the core of Faith."
what the hell does that mean? 'act of love'? what's that? Core? In what respect.
Distinguo distinguo distinguo

"Fides et Ratio is good counsel"? Is that how you treat the extraordinary magisterium?

Yes, Faith without love is dead. It is a broken gong, as St. Paul states. It is not really Faith unless it has love. Abraham's Faith (and He is our Father in Faith) was fulfilled through his act of love of God.
You may have Aristotle, and be a total jerk.

The message about love is clear- second semester junior year!

What is they say in that damned song played at all the dances? "You can't hurry love
No, you just have to wait
You got to trust, give it time
No matter how long it takes"

Phil Colins? He was better when he just played the drums behind Peter Gabriel.

St. Francis de Sales warns about dancing.

Does Peregrine never sleep?

I think dancing may be imprudent and may lead somewhere bad, especially when you consider how you could be praying for the poor souls in purgatory instead. I think that's what St. Francis says in his Intro to the Devout Life... but he did not have the grace to attend TAC or do the swing, which clearly is the pre-emeinent dance of angels. If the Church does not teach this, it should. Because this is what they do at TAC, and TAC is the GREATEST EVER.

Did you ever ponder what a big jerk you sound like?

The Fifth Lateran Council makes it clear how flawed philosophy is, and dependent on grace. Do you think this might be why the Church teaches that revelation is necessary for right reason?

While excessive, this thread is quite a glimpse into the humor of the misunderstanding of the uses of language.

you're a jerk too Duda.

But grace is needed for right reason.

Faith perfects reason.

And revelation takes the form of sacred theology in the sacred science of the Church.

Metaphysics aids sacred science, like a lowly handmaid.

Metaphysics does not thump her breast like LeBron James, as the founding persons of TAC have misrepresented her, those reactionaries.

On track for 3000. I can't believe you guys have had several threads of this. You must enjoy it very much.

Lauren, Grace acts in the human soul prior to an act of free will. The infallible dogma on invincible grace states "There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will."
It is so sad that TAC does not study the Catholic faith.

And to set the world on fire, with love of Christ and his Blessed Mother, Mary, theotokos, conceived without sin.

I think it's recursive

I call people jerks out of love all the time.

It is possible to call someone a jerk out of love. That word is not oustide the ball park. Other words are, though.

And who determines which words can be said out of love and which cannot?

There are standards for usage within the English language. There are standards for reason. It is not reasonable to state that metaphysics is the fulfillment of sacred theology, then back that false statement up with another false statement that theology would be impossible without philosophy. In the order of nature, theology would be impossible without words; but in the order of being, grace perfects nature, not the other way around.
Oops! I've run afoul of the Blue Book!

Metaphysics at TAC fulfills sacred theology which you can study later.
I know the Church says the exact opposite, but I've got to side with TAC on this one.

Ed, we've seen that quote already, 816 posts ago. Theology would be impossible without words too, but this is in the order of nature, not the order of being.
I know to most TAC alum, Faith would be impossible without your theology seminar, but again this is in the order of nature, not being.
We are Catholics first, alumnists second.

YES! WORDS ARE NECESSARY TO THEOLOGY.

Catherine... without WORDS, it would be impossible to discuss theology. THIS IS IN THE ORDER OF NATURE, NOT BEING. IN THE ORDER OF BEING, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REASON RIGHTLY WITHOUT GRACE AND REVELATION. THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES. TAC TEACHES THE OPPOSITE, HOLDING UP THE ORDER OF NATURE FOR THE ORDER OF BEING AND THUMPING ITS BREAST. IT IS PATHETIC.

Being is another complicated word to toss around. But at least we are getting somewhere with what Josh said about the order of knowing now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvhTwefXcMs
I hate Squirrels - UP
Sometimes Squirrels can really be distraction
August 25 at 10:50am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Edward Langley I'll shorten the quote so you don't miss the important part: "It is necessary therefore that the mind of the believer acquire a natural, consistent and true knowledge of created realities—the world and man himself—which are also the object of divine Revelation. Still more, reason must be able to articulate this knowledge in concept and argument. Speculative dogmatic theology thus presupposes and implies a philosophy of the human being, the world and, more radically, of being, which has objective truth as its foundation." — Pope St John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 66

And I might repeat that quote

(which would probably cause this thread to reach some kind of record)

Back a while ago, Daniel Lendman pointed out that Faith is imperfect as knowledge except with regard to certitude: a claim you had trouble with for some reason. I'd like you to explain how Faith differs from the Beatific Vision and why the latter is more perfect and desirable than the former. I think it might help you see why Sacred Theology depends on reason to flesh out the structure given by the dogmaticly promulgated principles of theology.

Ed, I don't think he's reading the responses anyways, because Josh Kenz just distinguished the order of being and nature and relation to philosophy and theology.

Lauren, you are dismissing the correctness of my statements because you imagine someone named Josh to have debunked my claim. This is idiocy.

Pereventure, I don't think I've ever denied that, but perhaps I haven't repeated it dogmatically enough for you.

He likes putting words in people's mouths Edward.

Someone told a joke once which I think fits the situation:
Peregrine doesn't just want to read his own opinions, he wants to read other people repeating his own opinions in their own words.

You just said (or implied) that Ed was saying the church was not infallible with regards to faith and morals and he didn't say anything of that kind!

Plus everyone else has used church documents etc to support their arguments. And you have not responded to direct and simple questions.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

And I try to make it my mission in life to object to everything that comes out of Ed's mouth, but now it's becoming next to impossible because for once he's actually saying everything simply

Lauren, Ed, above, objected to how I disputed a previous claim that Faith is imperfect as knowledge. Faith is in no way imperfect. The Faith of the Church is infallible. The Church's teaching on Faith is infallible. He is suggesting that it is imperfect in some way because Faith is not reasoned to. This is ridiculous.
besides, this is a dodge. The only issue here is TAC's false claim that sacred theology would be unfulfilled without metaphysics. This statement in the Blue Book is unequivocal, This is utter heresy.

Still waiting on you, PB, for your magesterial sources. Care to cite a text or two?

Joel, you can go look up the dogmas of the Church. If you believe that sacred theology depends on them, and if you are presuming to speak for the sacred science, then you must know where to find these.

"The fear of the Lord is wisdom."
"It is not flesh and blood which has revealed these things, but my Father in heaven."

Oh yay! Now we are sola scriptura and taking verses all on their own! Very Catholic thing to do.

http://memegenerator.net/instance/53763062
The Peregrine is not amused | Peregrine
memegenerator.net
Note: Only personal attacks are removed, otherwise if it's just content you find offensive, you are free to browse other websites.
August 25 at 11:13am · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
Catherine Ryland In other words, you can't study anything about what is divinely revealed (=sacred theology) without also studying things about being, person and so on.

If not, tell us how they differ.

How do they differ? What does the notion of "Sacred Theology" add to the gift of faith? Promulgation by the magesterium? Or (GASP) reasoning?

No, the conclusion of your argument is that metaphysics is not necessary for faith. you botched it again

That's a virtus dormitiva definition if I've ever seen one.

(Oh, I forgot that you don't approve of reading either Moliere or Nietzsche)

Katherine, have we defined magesterium yet? Magesterially?

^Freudian projection?!

Thank you.

Plus, Sacred Theology is not a process.

I'm reminded today why I don't miss this place.

thanks, Scott. I am an irrelevant heretical thug. You nailed it

I think most of us are just amusing ourselves while we wait for you to answer approximately 500 questions.

STUDYING sacred theology is a process.

but don't confuse the science and the study of the science

Geometry is the process of going from things better known to things newly known and unfolding, in the order of shape.

Geometry is in no way necessary to the Faith.

Metaphysics is the process of going from things better known to things newly known and unfolding, in the order of being.

Natural philosophy is in no way necessary to sacred theology.

Metaphysics is in no way necessary to sacred theology, in the order of being. This is what the Church teaches. But TAC is smarter than the Magisterium.

Edward Langley is a fool in the process of being more foolish, in the order of nature.

The process I'm using is known as baculation

a non TAC thesis: does the lack of a magesterial definition of magesterium lead to the reform of the eternal reform and the creation of eternal troll dwelling threads?

"Not every problem, nor every thesis, should be examined, but only one which might puzzle one of those who need argument, not punishment or perception. For people who are puzzled to know whether one ought to honour the gods and love one's parents or not need punishment, while those who are puzzled to know whether snow is white or not need perception." (Topics, I.11)

We're asking you for a definition of a habit and you're defining an action.

No, you are just being a fool.

still, Scott, no one is saying that metaphysics perfects theology. You keep saying that

I blame the magesterium for this entire thread for not defining . . . in this case magesterium. Is it ok then to take a peek at tradition when definitions were not out of touch with times? Or is that too heretical?

There is a distinction between the order of learning and the order of being, but you are using it wrong, Scott.

Scott has already demonstrated above that he does not know or understand the definition of metaphysics or of Sacred Theology. Thus, he confuses the two.

If it is any consolation, your participation on this thread makes it loads more delightful. It also gives a stunning counter-example whenever it is stated that TAC grads are, universally, jerks.
It is hard to argue against that claim with Edward, Beitia and I around.

I think you tried to be a jerk once, Catherine, and we all laughed. Your faults are other.

Clayton, I am afraid that this discussion will make poor material for your classes.

Roma locuta est. Causa finita est.

Daniel, weren't you the one claiming that order of being is a term being tossed around a few minutes ago?

Dude. That is not my argument.

And you are a bunch of jerks. Anyone who would defend the idea that metaphysics is necessary for the fulfillment of the sacred science, when the Church teaches that all natural theology would err without her Wisdom, is an arrogant fool.

Quod proferitur, refero

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

You can't get to/reach truths that are solely revealed by God (like the Trinity) with your unaided reason. No one is arguing that.

This doesn't make sense:
Anyone who would defend the idea that metaphysics is necessary for the fulfillment of the sacred science, when the Church teaches that all natural theology would err without her Wisdom, is an arrogant fool.
And since, I am already an arrogant jerk, I should let it be known that I am really freaking smart. So, if it doesn't make sense to me, chances are, the problem is yours.

the troll confuses "Tool" with "fulfillment" and applies it to TAC

Jerk, that's no argument.

^neither is that^

So what Catherine?
Daniel, it is perfectly reasonable. You are incompetent.

shhh you'll let him in on our gnosis

This really is a masterful exposition of the order of the intellectual life: http://www.forumromanum.org/liter.../bonaventura/reduct.html
Bonaventura: De reductione artium ad theologiam
www.forumromanum.org
1 "Omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a Patre luminum", Iacobus in Epistulae suae primo capitulo. In hoc verbo tangitur origo omnis illuminationis, et simul cum hoc insinuatur multiplicis luminis ab illa fontali luce liberalis emanatio. Licet autem omnis illuminatio…
August 25 at 12:09pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Daniel Lendman Given that I have graduated Summa Cum Laud from two graduate institutions...nope. I am not incompetent. I am playing the part of the arrogant jerk, though.