Over in the Old Dart there is a battle right now between the Catholic Church and the British government. The British government under Tony Blair wants to force Catholic adoption agencies to adopt out children to sodomites. The Church, on the other hand, wants an exemption from the law to allow them to peacefully operate without having to be complicit in this disgusting child abuse. The whole episode has resulted in pleading letters from the bishops to the government to allow the free exercise of conscience in this matter.
But there is another disturbing element to this story.
And that's the disturbingly weak quality of the arguments being put forward by Cardinal Cormac Murphy and his non-opposition to the law in general (so long as Catholics have an 'out').
Take this story from Catholic World News (my emphasis):
"Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor said that he was still hopeful that Catholic agencies would be able to continue their adoption services, despite the conflict between the new policy and Church teachings. He did not directly oppose the Equality Act, saying: 'The government has a right to legislate and homosexual couples are also able to adopt in other agencies but we want to hold onto this principle.' "
Yes, the government has the "right to legislate" but it does not have the right to legislate laws that are directly opposed to the natural moral law. Any law that is contrary to the natural moral law is immoral and illicit in itself. To quote from John Paul II's encyclical on the Gospel of Life:
"In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.' "
You can read more here including the ridiculous remarks of Ruth "the practicing Catholic" Kelly.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48945
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Form from Matter
In the last post on form I mentioned that matter cannot exist without form. Formless matter does not exist. What about the reverse situation? Can you have the form without the matter? The answer is yes.
This is what our intellect does. When we see dogs we are able to abstract what is essential to all dogs. We are able to abstract the form dogginess. We are able to grasp what is common to all the dogs that we have seen and formed an sense image of in our mind (known as a phantasm).
This fact is related to proving the spirituality (and hence immortality) of the soul.
This is what our intellect does. When we see dogs we are able to abstract what is essential to all dogs. We are able to abstract the form dogginess. We are able to grasp what is common to all the dogs that we have seen and formed an sense image of in our mind (known as a phantasm).
This fact is related to proving the spirituality (and hence immortality) of the soul.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Mass
Well having seen my co-blogger's storm of great posts, it seems I must at least make an intellectual post on what I have learn t from the "Spirit of the Liturgy" By then Cardinal Ratzinger.The Catholic mass is the final product of:
* The Old testament i.e. Judaism
* The inner purification of man's religious sense
* The human quest to reach God
* A Divine response from God
Man's gift from God in order to full fill his existence is the Holy Mass. To all those
people who are looking for a religion that encompasses all religions, they can look no further then Catholicism, because it does just that, not through visible appearance but through the base philosophy behind it. I will build on this in further posts.
Transubstantiation
I abruptly ended the last post with a note about transubstantiation. I'm going to continue this topic in the current post before going back to the examination of the philosophical concept of form. The two topics are, of course, closely related.
With the mystery of the Eucharist we have two miracles occurring.
The first is that we have the accidents of the bread and the wine without any substance in which to inhere. An important point to grasp is that the perception of the accidents of bread and wine on the part of our senses is not an illusion. God is not deceiving us into thinking they are there when are not. On the contrary, they are there. The accidents of bread and wine really exist although now minus their substance.
The second miracle of the Eucharist is that the properties of Jesus' body and blood exist without our senses detecting them.
I'm using our discussion on form, substance and accidents to go into this topic because there is a misunderstanding that I have come across amongst devout Catholics.
It concerns the existence of the accidents of the bread and wine after the miraculous process of transubstantiation. Let me begin by saying that the word "accidents" tends to be avoided these days. With a modern audience the word is just as likely to evoke images of car smashes than anything else. The substitute put in it's place is usually the word "appearances."
Unfortunately "appearances" has it's own problem. The word "accidents" is a broader term covering more than just the appearances of a thing but also the properties that belong to it such as density and physical effects.
Now I have found that it isn't entirely uncommon to come across the idea that if a priest, hypothetically speaking, where to drink a very large amount of consecrated wine then he would not end up drunk on the pretext that it is the "blood of Christ." Indeed, it is the blood of Christ but we have here a perfect example of opposing one truth with another. The fact is, he would indeed become drunk. This also applies to people with an allergy to the gluten in bread. The consecrated host will have an effect on them because of the accidents proper to bread remain.
This goes to show how handy those philosophy concepts are.
With the mystery of the Eucharist we have two miracles occurring.
The first is that we have the accidents of the bread and the wine without any substance in which to inhere. An important point to grasp is that the perception of the accidents of bread and wine on the part of our senses is not an illusion. God is not deceiving us into thinking they are there when are not. On the contrary, they are there. The accidents of bread and wine really exist although now minus their substance.
The second miracle of the Eucharist is that the properties of Jesus' body and blood exist without our senses detecting them.
I'm using our discussion on form, substance and accidents to go into this topic because there is a misunderstanding that I have come across amongst devout Catholics.
It concerns the existence of the accidents of the bread and wine after the miraculous process of transubstantiation. Let me begin by saying that the word "accidents" tends to be avoided these days. With a modern audience the word is just as likely to evoke images of car smashes than anything else. The substitute put in it's place is usually the word "appearances."
Unfortunately "appearances" has it's own problem. The word "accidents" is a broader term covering more than just the appearances of a thing but also the properties that belong to it such as density and physical effects.
Now I have found that it isn't entirely uncommon to come across the idea that if a priest, hypothetically speaking, where to drink a very large amount of consecrated wine then he would not end up drunk on the pretext that it is the "blood of Christ." Indeed, it is the blood of Christ but we have here a perfect example of opposing one truth with another. The fact is, he would indeed become drunk. This also applies to people with an allergy to the gluten in bread. The consecrated host will have an effect on them because of the accidents proper to bread remain.
This goes to show how handy those philosophy concepts are.
Form 2
This follows on from yesterday's post on form.
It may have been noticed that the examples I provided came from the natural world - apples and trees.
Sometimes, when starting out, it isn't unusual for the concept of form to be explained by examples which consist in things made by man. Such as shoes or hats.
The form of shoes, as you would have no doubt guessed, is shoeness. Shoeness is what makes a shoe a shoe.
Now there is an important difference between the forms of appleness and shoeness. Shoeness is what we call an artificial form. Appleness, on the other hand is a substantial form as mentioned previously.
The other concept touched on briefly below was that of prime matter. Prime matter is what a substantial form unites itself to. When it does so it turns into a particular apple or tree.
Prime matter, as such, does not exist. Prime matter is matter without any form whatsoever. It is pure potency. That means it has potency for any form (potency is "lack but can have"). It can potentially be everything. But being potentially everything it is in fact, nothing. Matter cannot exist without form. It needs to be actualised by some form. Of course, matter actualised by a form still retains a limited range of things that it can turn itself into. It still has some potency. For instance a piece of wood is potentially a pile of ashes. But it isn't potentially a muddle of water. Unlike prime matter it has a limited range of potencies.
Restricting ourselves to a consideration of those things which are material, their substance is their substantial form united to matter.
Please note what is meant by "matter" here. In the Glossary to "Summa of the Summa" philosopher Peter Kreeft says:
"matter: the principle in a thing's being by which it is able to be determined by form; potency as vs. actuality. In modern parlance, the word refers to actual, visible, formed things (chemicals, molecules) but in Thomistic and Aristotelian parlance "matter" is not itself observable or even of itself actual. It not a thing but a metaphysical principle or aspect of things, which together with form explains change, as the actualizing (in-form-ing) of potency (matter)."
This is important to ensure the word "matter" is not bringing up the wrong connotations.
So for material things:
substance = substantial form + matter
Some substances such as angels are pure forms not united to matter but we may be getting ahead of ourselves.
A substance is something that exists of itself rather than in something else.
What do we mean by this?
Earlier I mentioned accidents. Accidents are something's individual properties. It is a result of form being united to matter. All apples have the form of appleness but this particular apple may be such a shade of color or be a particular size or shape. No two apples are the same in other words. The matter individuates the form.
Accidents inhere (exist in) a substance. They are upheld or supported by the substance they exist in. An accidental change does not affect the substance. Putting a dent in the apple doesn't mean it ceases to remain an apple. However a change in substance will result in an change of accidents which inhere in the former. For instance if I burn a piece of toast I am making a substantial change (bread into carbon) with the necessary accompanying change in accidents.
A substance is of the opposite nature. It exists by its own being not in something else.
If you are thinking ahead you would have already noticed that the exception to this is the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrifice of Mass. Two miracles are taking place here at the same time.
It may have been noticed that the examples I provided came from the natural world - apples and trees.
Sometimes, when starting out, it isn't unusual for the concept of form to be explained by examples which consist in things made by man. Such as shoes or hats.
The form of shoes, as you would have no doubt guessed, is shoeness. Shoeness is what makes a shoe a shoe.
Now there is an important difference between the forms of appleness and shoeness. Shoeness is what we call an artificial form. Appleness, on the other hand is a substantial form as mentioned previously.
The other concept touched on briefly below was that of prime matter. Prime matter is what a substantial form unites itself to. When it does so it turns into a particular apple or tree.
Prime matter, as such, does not exist. Prime matter is matter without any form whatsoever. It is pure potency. That means it has potency for any form (potency is "lack but can have"). It can potentially be everything. But being potentially everything it is in fact, nothing. Matter cannot exist without form. It needs to be actualised by some form. Of course, matter actualised by a form still retains a limited range of things that it can turn itself into. It still has some potency. For instance a piece of wood is potentially a pile of ashes. But it isn't potentially a muddle of water. Unlike prime matter it has a limited range of potencies.
Restricting ourselves to a consideration of those things which are material, their substance is their substantial form united to matter.
Please note what is meant by "matter" here. In the Glossary to "Summa of the Summa" philosopher Peter Kreeft says:
"matter: the principle in a thing's being by which it is able to be determined by form; potency as vs. actuality. In modern parlance, the word refers to actual, visible, formed things (chemicals, molecules) but in Thomistic and Aristotelian parlance "matter" is not itself observable or even of itself actual. It not a thing but a metaphysical principle or aspect of things, which together with form explains change, as the actualizing (in-form-ing) of potency (matter)."
This is important to ensure the word "matter" is not bringing up the wrong connotations.
So for material things:
substance = substantial form + matter
Some substances such as angels are pure forms not united to matter but we may be getting ahead of ourselves.
A substance is something that exists of itself rather than in something else.
What do we mean by this?
Earlier I mentioned accidents. Accidents are something's individual properties. It is a result of form being united to matter. All apples have the form of appleness but this particular apple may be such a shade of color or be a particular size or shape. No two apples are the same in other words. The matter individuates the form.
Accidents inhere (exist in) a substance. They are upheld or supported by the substance they exist in. An accidental change does not affect the substance. Putting a dent in the apple doesn't mean it ceases to remain an apple. However a change in substance will result in an change of accidents which inhere in the former. For instance if I burn a piece of toast I am making a substantial change (bread into carbon) with the necessary accompanying change in accidents.
A substance is of the opposite nature. It exists by its own being not in something else.
If you are thinking ahead you would have already noticed that the exception to this is the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrifice of Mass. Two miracles are taking place here at the same time.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Form
I may post from time to time, God willing, on topics that will help Roman understand concepts that will better enable him to read his new book "A Shorter Summa". As I have no need to make this private I will deposit my comments here, on the blog.
One topic I briefly raised was the matter of "form." You will come across this term regularly in the Summa Theologicae (yes, my name should have an "e" on the end and I hope to fix it if I can).
Firstly, what is mean by "form"?
Form is what makes something what it is. It is what makes a tree a tree and an apple an apple.
The worst mistake we can make in thinking of "form" is that is is the shape of the object.
Take apples for instance. There are many varieties of apples in the world and even those of the same variety differ amongst themselves in their precise features. Yet they are all apples.
The form of an apple is "appleness." Appleness is what makes an apple what it is. If you were to try and draw "appleness" (what is common to all apples) you would find it impossible to do so.
This helps us to see that form is not the shape or outline of the object.
In an actually existing material object form is united to matter. Matter is the individuating principle. It is what makes it this apple this apple and not the one over there or the one next to it.
"Appleness" is a substantial form. The individual features a particular apple has when its substantial form is united to prime matter are its accidents or accidental forms.
One topic I briefly raised was the matter of "form." You will come across this term regularly in the Summa Theologicae (yes, my name should have an "e" on the end and I hope to fix it if I can).
Firstly, what is mean by "form"?
Form is what makes something what it is. It is what makes a tree a tree and an apple an apple.
The worst mistake we can make in thinking of "form" is that is is the shape of the object.
Take apples for instance. There are many varieties of apples in the world and even those of the same variety differ amongst themselves in their precise features. Yet they are all apples.
The form of an apple is "appleness." Appleness is what makes an apple what it is. If you were to try and draw "appleness" (what is common to all apples) you would find it impossible to do so.
This helps us to see that form is not the shape or outline of the object.
In an actually existing material object form is united to matter. Matter is the individuating principle. It is what makes it this apple this apple and not the one over there or the one next to it.
"Appleness" is a substantial form. The individual features a particular apple has when its substantial form is united to prime matter are its accidents or accidental forms.
Defining "Science"
Following on from Roman's post on his growing library (including his most unexpected remarks concerning this humble blogger's efforts) I wanted to focus on something we discussed together yesterday.
In our conversation Roman mentioned the word "science" in connection with a topic we were discussing. This lead us to talk about what science is.
I pointed out that "science" is a word that is used all the time by people without any concern for what, precisely, they mean by the word.
"Science" has unfortunately become equated to be one and the same with the "physical sciences." Placing the word "physical" in front of it implies (as I mean it to) that it is, in fact, only one branch of science.
Classically science is defined as "the knowledge of things in their causes." Another definition is "any systematized body of knowledge."
It is in this broader sense that Theology is said to be the "Queen of the Sciences" and philosophy its handmaid.
Of course, the first alternative definition, is also narrower than what the word commonly means today in the sense that it refers to certain knowledge of real causes.
In fact, some people think that "science" (i.e the physical sciences) provides more certain knowledge than philosophy (which is viewed as more "opinionated") which is quite false.
In our conversation Roman mentioned the word "science" in connection with a topic we were discussing. This lead us to talk about what science is.
I pointed out that "science" is a word that is used all the time by people without any concern for what, precisely, they mean by the word.
"Science" has unfortunately become equated to be one and the same with the "physical sciences." Placing the word "physical" in front of it implies (as I mean it to) that it is, in fact, only one branch of science.
Classically science is defined as "the knowledge of things in their causes." Another definition is "any systematized body of knowledge."
It is in this broader sense that Theology is said to be the "Queen of the Sciences" and philosophy its handmaid.
Of course, the first alternative definition, is also narrower than what the word commonly means today in the sense that it refers to certain knowledge of real causes.
In fact, some people think that "science" (i.e the physical sciences) provides more certain knowledge than philosophy (which is viewed as more "opinionated") which is quite false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
