Thanks for the resource! I like their "Summa 2.0" project, which they refer to as the Tractatus.

Have you looked into the New Apologetics Facebook site? The conversations (and answers) are very high quality. The organization is Catholic, loyal to the magisterium.

https://www.facebook.com/NewApologetics

I don't mean to take away from the conversation that is taking place here, but a lot of people have found it to be a helpful resource. Sorry if this is unwelcome or against page rules, please delete it if so, thanks!

Thanks for your interest. I don't see a coincidence here, I am not looking for assistance or help. Psalm 90 praises the power of God and talks about us being "consumed by Thine (god's) anger".

(It also states we live 70-80 years max, my grandma was 99, but no ones perfect).

I don't harden my heart, I would like nothing more than to get everlasting life for accepting Jesus, he just needs to say hello, I'm here. (And he has to be a little more direct than doing it through the smile of a baby or something, obviously).

Hey there!

Hope all is going well with you.

Given our exchange this past weekend, I thought some of the Mass bits were particularly interesting. The entrance antiphon this week is: "O God, come to my assistance; O Lord, make haste to help me! You are my rescuer, my help; O Lord, do not delay." The psalm response is from psalm 90: "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts."

I try to go to daily Mass during the week and these have been repeated a couple times already. I, of course, consider it quite a coincidence! :)

Peace to you!
Linda

Because many people, at the time, doubted it. Just because something *can* be known through reason doesn't mean it is.

I don't think St. Paul, or the First Vatican Council, was saying that the existence of God (and certain things about his nature, and certain moral precepts) was something like tensor calculus, which the vast majority of people don't know but anyone who is smart enough can eventually understand. Paul says in Romans 1:19-21:

19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

Paul is not saying that God is knowable to a limited number of people capable of a difficult process of reasoning. He is saying what can be known about God is evident, because God made it evident, and there is no excuse for those who don't see and acknowledge what is evident.

Because many people, at the time, doubted it. . . . Therefore when there arose confusion about this question in the Church, the magisterium clarified
it.

When was the Church so confused about natural knowledge of God that it was necessary to make an infallible pronouncement on it?

The same St. Paul who noted in Romans that the existence of God should be evident to all was well aware that many people still denied it. That's precisely why he sought out and evangelized atheists (cf. Acts 17).

It seems to me that the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers sought out St. Paul more than he sought out them. I am no expert, but I don't believe it is correct to call Epicureans and Stoics atheists.

I'd encourage you to be more careful about pulling verses out of context and isolating them to make a point.

I am a little stunned at being cautioned about quoting the Bible. It seems to me that one of the weaknesses of the "theists" in this forum is that they quote too little. I find it frustrating that so frequently some of the commenters here comment from the tops of their heads rather than doing a little research and providing some documentation. I am just one commenter here among many. If I quote out of context, I would expect the proper response would be for someone else to quote in context, not to warn me about quoting out of context. Aren't we here to discuss?

"My point is that declaring by infallible authority as a dogma of faith that something—anything—can be known through reason alone is ironic. If something can be known by reason alone, why should it be an article of faith that it can be known by reason, especially when, according to St. Paul, it is evident?"

Because many people, at the time, doubted it. Just because something *can* be known through reason doesn't mean it is. Even today, people don't know many things that reason alone can explain, either because of willed ignorance or clouded intellects. Therefore when there arose confusion about this question in the Church, the magisterium clarified it.

I don't see any irony or contradiction.

PS. The same St. Paul who noted in Romans that the existence of God should be evident to all was well aware that many people still denied it. That's precisely why he sought out and evangelized atheists (cf. Acts 17). I'd encourage you to be more careful about pulling verses out of context and isolating them to make a point.

I'm sorry, can you point me to the dogmatic declaration that you're speaking of?

Regarding the Romans quote, I would only say that this verse is referring to what can be known about God through reason. This verse does not exist on its own, it must be read in the context of all of Scripture, which must be read within the context of Sacred Tradition. We can come to the knowledge of God through our reason, which must then be supplemented by the gift of God's grace, which is faith, by which we can truly come to know Him more deeply. When the verse says “what can be known about God” certainly does not mean everything that can be known about God, because God is infinite and our finite minds couldn't possibly ever know everything about the infinite God.

I apologize David, I misread your statement.

Regarding your statement:

"If Jesus had mentioned transubstantiation, or substance, or accidents, or had given anything remotely resembling a philosophical explanation of what he was doing at the Last Supper, then your argument that we must believe Jesus meant what he said would have some force."

Jesus founded His Church with the command to teach and evangelize. I'm not aware of any statement He made which would put a time limit on how long the Church had to come to a full understanding of His revelation. Why arbitrarily choose the 16th century to be beyond that limit? Why not choose to object to the definition of the Trinity in the 4th century? After all, for almost 300 years prior, the church hadn't bothered to officially define this doctrine. Who are we to decide that our present understanding of Jesus' revelation can be understood more deeply or defined more precisely?

As Vickie has already explained, it's only when certain doctrine are being attacked that the Church gives a more precise definition of that doctrine in order to protect it from attack. Before that attack, there was no need for a more precise definition, which explains why the attempt of a technical explanation for Jesus' real presence in the Eucharist didn't happen until Trent.

My point about believing that Jesus meant what he said still carries the weight. Either the bread and wine become His body and blood or they don't. If they don't then it calls into question everything else He said, but they do. We know they are transformed because His Church, to whom He gave His authority to teach all that He commanded, has through an ecumenical Council defined for us, (in the best way that limited human language can presently understand the infinite), how even though the bread and wine don't look different, what they "are" changes at the consecration. At that point of transformation, they are no longer bread and wine, they are his body and blood.

Also, I think you're mistaken regarding the language of transubstantiation being a stumbling block for contemporary individuals. After all, it's faith that draws us to Christ. But, I listened to a gentleman recently who stated that while he had been an atheist, it was the doctrine of transubstantiation that he found to be most compelling.
Peace in Christ!

Thank you for the contact. I find that it takes considerable editing, and rethinking to get to the point where these attempts at 'essays', are acceptable, in the sense that I feel I have actually conveyed a particular point, that I am concurrently attempting to understand better. Thus I return, and return, constantly editing, editing, and rethinking the presentation. But I want you to know how I appreciate this opportunity to develop within the context of an engaged dialogue. Thank you.

You are correct in that Kant basis his ethics on intentionality and is not the virtue ethics of Aristotle. One of the reasons why I do not completely agree with his principles, as I still subscribe to 'virtue ethics' as the necessary subjective 'moral' consideration within the context of developing as 'persons'. Kant's intentional, perhaps intends to find a more objective basis, within the rational criteria of intentionality.

With respect to the relation of aesthetic judgment, practical reason, and 'pure' or theoretical reason, all of these comments reflect the difficulties I am having with respect to the interactions and dynamics within these constructs. Kant's critiques present a paradigm of the organization of human thought that I believe even some neuro- scientists are taking up for their model of 'consiousness.
I am comfortable with the conclusion that Kant finds that aesthetic judgments and Teleology work in some way with the understanding based on the a priori principles and together are determinants within their interaction of moral 'action' - I have just discovered through this post a relation of the imperative to natural reason that has in a way reconciled me to a difficulty I had with him in this regard..
You may be aware that Kant initially conceived his structure of morality, including its basis in sapient knowledge, or the aesthetic, as a proof of God's existence. In his later years and dotage, there is a possibility that he did become a complete naturalist, and may even have concluded the moral law was sufficient. But I don't want to make a 'judgment' on this.
Because of this high regard in which he held his 'categorical imperative', however, he is very strict about what 'behaviors' live up to this criteria. I interpret him as suggesting that a conscious intentional choice is required for a behavior to reflect a 'moral' choice. His distinction therefore, would be that persons do not always act within the scope of a rationality that is directed towards the higher purpose he characterizes as the kingdom of ends.

To 'act' morally according to Kant demands that we make autonomous decisions that are not based on the worldly aspirations of pragmatic theories of morality, like consequentialism, etc. His reason for doing this could even, therefore, be motivated by the rather 'pragmatic' intention to distinguish his philosophy from Hume's sensationalism, and the British philosopher Bentham et. al's Utilitarianism. In other words, to make an ironic observation, this philosophical distinction may have been made from a purely pragmatic, rather than moral intention, or rationale. (I love being humorous about these things some time.

Hope I have been sufficient clear. My postings are an attempt to understand these issues myself. This site allows me to explore these issues within the context of particular problems. In that regard I hope I am remaining true to the dictums of recent philosophy to ground the 'idealizations' within experience. However, within such Socratic dialogues, it becomes evident that a philosophic structure such as Kant's imperative, possibly demands different interpretations within different individual contexts, as the interaction for instance between different aesthetic values and the understanding are 'fluid' within an existential context..