JA Escalante the Canadian presence at TAC has gone way too far when "Caribou" appears in a thesis title
August 14 at 2:14pm · Like · 31

Daniel P. O'Connell Slideshow? Wow. Getting high-tech.
August 14 at 2:15pm · Like · 2

Christopher Michael Mercincavage I don't see one decent paper on Belgian Lesbian Studies anywhere on this list! How can this be a legitimate school?
August 14 at 2:23pm · Unlike · 9

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

OH SNAP
August 14 at 2:38pm · Like · 16

Matthew J. Peterson Wild how many of these are circling around political philosophy. I've wondered if this is a trend over the last decade or so. Richard Delahide Ferrier, David Quackenbush, Brian Dragoo - do you think there are more or less students writing on political philosophy topics these days than in the past? Or has it remained roughly constant?
August 14 at 2:44pm · Edited · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Escalante: The next step will be a thesis on usury and the Loonie.
August 14 at 2:48pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure A surprising number of theological interests: even something on evangelization. I'd say the students are taking over.
August 14 at 2:51pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 14 at 2:51pm · Like · 7

Matthew J. Peterson There are always at least that number of theological interests in play, Peregrine Bonaventure. Just like there are is an absurdly high percentage of grads who go into the religious life.
August 14 at 2:51pm · Edited · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 14 at 2:53pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Sometimes quality is more important than volume 

I always like seeing the "trends" of the thesis titles for each class. You can always tell which topics caused the most after class thought 
August 14 at 2:57pm · Unlike · 3

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 14 at 3:00pm · Edited · Unlike · 7

Michael Beitia ^and painfully^
August 14 at 3:01pm · Like · 9

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 14 at 3:05pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure The claim that the "requirement" to read Thomas is greater at TAC than any other college, and not even close, is false and ridiculous. Christendom theology students are required to read a greater volume in a context which is more pre-eminent in quality. This false claim is presupposed by an academic bias, and what is the point of studying St. Thomas if you ere in theological speculation because of your academic bias? But congratulations! Every college graduate deserves congratulations!
August 14 at 3:15pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick What do you mean by in context? And I guess I should clarify my "quality" was a tease.
August 14 at 3:22pm · Edited · Unlike · 2

Matthew J. Peterson http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/a-liberating-education/syllabus

Syllabus | Thomas Aquinas College
www.thomasaquinas.edu
The following is a list of works read in whole or in part in the curriculum of Thomas Aquinas College. They are not all of equal weight. Some are regarded as masterworks, while others serve as sources of opinions that either lead students to the truth or make the truth more evident by opposition to…
August 14 at 3:23pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Those are specified Theology students not all Christendom students, which is the distinction that was being made I do believe.
August 14 at 3:23pm · Unlike · 3

Aaron Gigliotti #echochamber
August 14 at 3:24pm · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 14 at 3:26pm · Edited · Like · 2

Drew Summitt "A Link to the Past: An Investigation of the Role of History in the Understanding and Development of Political Science"

Favorite one.
August 14 at 3:26pm · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 14 at 3:28pm · Like · 8

Aaron Gigliotti "Do You Want to Share an Apartment in Pasadena: The Relationship Between Insular Catholic Colleges and the Failure to Launch."
August 14 at 3:30pm · Like · 24

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 14 at 3:37pm · Edited · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick But what do you mean by in the context of the fullness of the faith? Supplementary readings, commentaries, by priests?
August 14 at 3:39pm · Unlike · 1

Aaron Gigliotti "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."
August 14 at 3:42pm · Like · 18

Matthew J. Peterson All true, and I complain about it all the time, but in the larger picture these places do pretty well at placing their top students. It drops off pretty quickly after that, but I think the complaints you bring up here (which I have shared for years) are a bit unfair when you zoom out.
August 14 at 3:44pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 14 at 3:44pm · Like

Thomas Hall Well, that was quite a ride. I love it, the righteous ambition, the studious intent, the frequent whimsy of the topics (Ptolemy's equant, really?).
August 14 at 3:45pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 14 at 3:50pm · Like · 1

Aaron Gigliotti I just like to knock you guys down a peg. I tease because I love.
August 14 at 3:52pm · Like · 5

Matthew J. Peterson 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."

$%^#%&
August 14 at 3:53pm · Edited · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson Aaron Gigliotti's: "Do You Want to Share an Apartment in Pasadena: The Relationship Between Insular Catholic Colleges and the Failure to Launch" wins the satire prize thus far. More entries requested.
August 14 at 3:55pm · Like · 9

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 14 at 3:56pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I'm still zooming...
August 14 at 3:59pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 14 at 4:00pm · Like · 7

JA Escalante "Much Ado About Nothing: On the Disproportion Between the Promise of Alluring TAC Thesis Titles and the Often Ho-Hum 30 Page Term Papers Which Follow Them"
August 14 at 4:01pm · Unlike · 22

Daniel P. O'Connell 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.
August 14 at 4:12pm · Like

JA Escalante ^ it wasn't at all boring, just pedantic
August 14 at 4:15pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante which is acceptable at that age
August 14 at 4:15pm · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell You're too kind.
August 14 at 4:16pm · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell I felt like it was a failure of nerve and a retreat into scholastic nonsense at the end. But yes, I was only 22.
August 14 at 4:16pm · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell If I had it to do all over again, I would be solidly #TeamJamesJoyce instead of #TeamThomas. 
August 14 at 4:19pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It's a simple false statement of hubris.
August 14 at 4:21pm · Like

Aaron Gigliotti "A Noble Lie: Just Because I Read 3500 Pages of Aristotle Doesn't Mean I Have Anything New to Say About It."
August 14 at 4:26pm · Like · 8

Peregrine Bonaventure "What I can write to get hired as a tutor because I have debt and can't get a real job."
August 14 at 4:37pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I think what I say in the status -- for all the serious flaws, defects, and problems of the place, which I am overly fond of speaking about -- is its trump card. 

All other aspects aside, it puts the student in direct contact with loads of St. Thomas and Aristotle. To me, that is its intellectual strength, and that for which I am especially grateful, since being in direct contact with both those two is a sine qua non for much else.
August 14 at 4:48pm · Edited · Like · 7

Matthew J. Peterson "We wanted our students to go out and change the world. We didn't realize that the world was Santa Paula." -- Marcus Berquist
August 14 at 4:51pm · Unlike · 22

Joe Zepeda Nasty remarks, even for you, Peregrin Bonaventure.
August 14 at 4:51pm · Unlike · 7

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 14 at 4:52pm · Edited · Unlike · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure To say that no other college comes close to reading Aristotle and Thomas to the extent that TAC does is simply false. There are most certainly several colleges in the USA that come close, and Christendom surpasses it in both quantity and quality. Without the guidance of the Church and its sacred theology, the metaphysical base at TAC is dangerously out of context. I am puzzled why you do not see this. It's sad that TACers have to continually talk themselves up. If the place were on track, this psychological quirk would not have to happen. At least half of what's taught there is theo-narcissism.
August 14 at 4:58pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure "Jerkibus Maximus: how hiding your meaning behind latin helps reveal the personality of TAC."
August 14 at 5:00pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson "'Who's that tripping over my bridge?' roared the troll."
August 14 at 5:00pm · Like · 13

Joe Zepeda "hiding your meaning behind latin" - says "Peregrine Bonaventure."
August 14 at 5:02pm · Like · 17

Peregrine Bonaventure Barbarian, making false claims. Hubris.
August 14 at 5:02pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Arrogant alum.
August 14 at 5:02pm · Like

John Herreid This comment thread is almost as good as reading "Lucky Jim".
August 14 at 5:09pm · Like · 9

Joe Zepeda Take it back, Herreid! Nothing is almost as good as reading "Lucky Jim"!
August 14 at 5:09pm · Like · 7

John Herreid I didn't say "as good".
August 14 at 5:10pm · Like · 1

John Herreid Time for some madrigals.
August 14 at 5:12pm · Like · 8

Joe Zepeda As long as there's another tenor to cover for me, I'm good with that.
August 14 at 5:16pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure No sacred theology. No online courses. No plexi-glass backboards.
August 14 at 5:17pm · Like

Joe Zepeda No shrubberies!
August 14 at 5:17pm · Like · 16

Liam Collins 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?
August 14 at 5:28pm · Unlike · 16

Peregrine Bonaventure No shrubberies? Liam: are you the guy who gave the commencement address last year and didn't mention the Church?
August 14 at 5:30pm · Like

Joe Zepeda 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!
August 14 at 5:34pm · Like · 3

Liam Collins haha. Nope. You're the guy who's misremembering my speech.
August 14 at 5:34pm · Unlike · 14

Joe Zepeda 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.
August 14 at 5:37pm · Unlike · 15

Peregrine Bonaventure That's right, O, great apologist, he forgot to mention the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Where's the Faith?
August 14 at 5:44pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure And let's never forget the importance of including sacred theology in a curriculum.
August 14 at 5:46pm · Like

John Herreid Is this all part of some East Coast vs West Coast Thomist battle? Better stop before someone gets hurt in a drive-by dissertationing.
August 14 at 5:46pm · Unlike · 14

Christopher Sebastian 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.
August 14 at 5:47pm · Unlike · 13

Peregrine Bonaventure And what about the Catholic Church?
August 14 at 5:48pm · Like

Michael Beitia 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 Antigone, Oedipus the King, Electra The Oresteia A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations The Elements of Style A Student’s Guide to Literature
August 14 at 5:48pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson "In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings."
August 14 at 5:50pm · Edited · Like · 21

Michael Beitia peruse the reading list, and stand firm by your claim, and the 8 most hated words in the English language
August 14 at 5:50pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, Liam was the one who gave the commencement address last year, with but one oblique reference to "teaching" Church, and n'er a reference to Catholic, lest it offend the backers, and no reference to Christ of his Holy Mother, Mary. Not to mention the curriculum which lacks sacred theology. It's the hubris, fellas. The hubris. The wagon-circling and the un-Godly hubris.
August 14 at 5:51pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia "let's go through the text line by line"
August 14 at 5:52pm · Like · 4

Peter Halpin At USF, I was once assigned a reading from a volume called,"Anti-Hegemonic, Post, Post Marxists Essays". So kiss it, all you Thomist zombies!!!
August 14 at 5:52pm · Like · 6

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 14 at 5:54pm · Unlike · 17

Christopher Sebastian I remember now Liam coming up to me cackling before giving his speech: "Hah, Chris, guess what, I'm going to purposefully not mention the word Catholic, just because I can, and I don't want to offend the backers!" I then asked who the backers were. He gave me sideways glances before darting up onto the stage. #thingsthatneverhappened
August 14 at 5:54pm · Unlike · 7

Michael Beitia I heard at Christendom, you can't give a commencement speech without using "magisterium" 47 times
August 14 at 5:55pm · Unlike · 13

Peregrine Bonaventure Straw man. Is TAC even Catholic? You'd never know it by many of the theses or commencement addresses. They can mean different things to different audiences. It's like code language, but it's really cowardly, and the gutting of sacred theology and the fullness of revelation.
August 14 at 5:56pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Does anyone know where Mr. Bonaventure can find a good grinder for his ax?
August 14 at 5:57pm · Like · 6

Christopher Sebastian "A Flute Player's Madrigal: On the Cowardly Hiding of Anti-Catholic Teachings Behind the Writing of Aristotle"
August 14 at 5:58pm · Like · 7

Liam Collins 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.
August 14 at 5:58pm · Unlike · 14

Peregrine Bonaventure Liam: did the Dean of Students edit your address for "appropriateness"?
August 14 at 5:59pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Where are you looking Liam Collins?
August 14 at 5:59pm · Like

Liam Collins Matt: Wichita, KS.
August 14 at 5:59pm · Unlike · 2

Liam Collins I'm about to start classes at WSU in aerospace engineering.
August 14 at 6:00pm · Unlike · 12

Christopher Sebastian That brain tho.
August 14 at 6:02pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 14 at 6:02pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Sound about like what a magisterium-less graduate full of hubris would do, Liam Collins
August 14 at 6:02pm · Edited · Unlike · 4

John Herreid That's usually the top question when hiring at most jobs. "How did your college read Thomas Aquinas?"
August 14 at 6:04pm · Edited · Like · 20

Mike Potemra I have been in love with TAC for many years. I'm thrilled they still put out this list of great senior theses!
August 14 at 6:15pm · Like · 7

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 14 at 6:17pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson http://www.brainondigital.com/.../habits-highly.../

The Habits of Highly Effective Internet Trolls - Brain on Digital
www.brainondigital.com
Here’s a quick test to find out if you’re an Internet troll: Read the statement below and see if you agree with it. If so, you just might have what it takes to play a troll on the Internet. “The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.” Researchers at …
August 14 at 6:22pm · Unlike · 9

Matthew J. Peterson 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
August 14 at 6:23pm · Edited · Unlike · 3

Matthew J. Peterson In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet trolls (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics.

That’s bad, but it’s nothing compared with what a new psychology paper has to say about the personalities of trolls themselves...

http://www.slate.com/.../internet_troll_personality_study...

Science Confirms: Internet Trolls Really Are Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Sadistic
www.slate.com
In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet trolls (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to pol…
August 14 at 6:25pm · Unlike · 8

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, of course, TACers are pre-eminent. That goes without saying. There, are you happy now?
August 14 at 6:28pm · Like

Anne Marie don 't you think that's a little harsh, Peterson?
August 14 at 6:28pm · Like

Anne Marie love the slideshow, btw. thanks for sharing!
August 14 at 6:29pm · Like · 1

Anne Marie oh, ouch. Just glanced through all comments.Backing away slowly 
August 14 at 6:34pm · Like · 12

Matthew J. Peterson I think it's rather lenient, all things considered.
August 14 at 6:34pm · Edited · Unlike · 11

Matthew J. Peterson I would be open to looking at any evidence that some other institution requires their students, even within a major, to study more than TAC does re the two authors in question. Certainly no other institution requires as much study of the two of ALL their students as TAC does. But this isn't really a big deal except for the trolling.

This fact is not directly related to eminence, pre- or otherwise, but I do think it is one of the aspects of TAC, as flawed as it is, that is worth noting and praising. It is a wonderful thing in this day and age to put students in direct contact with that much Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.
August 14 at 6:39pm · Edited · Unlike · 8

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 14 at 6:40pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I never claimed that, of course. But I am close to claiming you may suffer from a trolling illness of some kind...
August 14 at 6:41pm · Edited · Unlike · 10

Peregrine Bonaventure 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"?
August 14 at 6:53pm · Like

Michael Beitia Have you sought help for your obsessive fixation with TAC?
August 14 at 7:03pm · Unlike · 15

Kevin Gallagher The best Catholic thinkers come from Yale. Just ask Elliot Milco
August 14 at 7:07pm · Unlike · 6

Michael Beitia I mean, I went there, and I have no idea who gives the commencement, or what is said. Hell, I can't even remember who gave ours. Does it keep you up at night wondering how to "bring down those arrogant TAC grads"? Do you get tired of beating the same, sad drum?
August 14 at 7:07pm · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson And Sex Week will enter this convo in 3, 2, 1...
August 14 at 7:09pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia sex week
August 14 at 7:09pm · Like · 9

Matthew J. Peterson I heard Elliot Milco thinks that William F. Buckley is the greatest Catholic thinker of our time, so maybe you are right, Kevin Gallagher.
August 14 at 7:10pm · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson #TrolLOLpalooza
August 14 at 7:11pm · Like · 8

Michael Beitia ^I see what you did there^
August 14 at 7:12pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, it is eminently -- no -- pre-eminently clear, that TAC produces the biggest jerks in all of Christendom... And if anyone reading this thread has a mind for academia, or Catholic thought, and is unfamiliar with this fraudulent little college, do not be misled by the erudite sounding titles of these seniors' theses. 'Tis nothing but misinformed theological speculation run amok. Send your kids to State College, and teach them how to keep the faith. Lest they graduate and go off into the world and are forced to make an existence by pretending they are the smartest human around the dinner table.
August 14 at 7:15pm · Like

Michael Beitia you absolutely OOOOOOOZe charity
August 14 at 7:16pm · Unlike · 8

Matthew J. Peterson I think parents should send their children to Yale, where they will learn humility and grace.
August 14 at 7:17pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia 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
August 14 at 7:18pm · Unlike · 9

Matthew J. Peterson But maybe TAC does produce the biggest jerks in all of Christendom... college.
August 14 at 7:19pm · Edited · Unlike · 16

Michael Beitia bwahahahaha
August 14 at 7:19pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson I keed, I keed - I joke with you all.
August 14 at 7:19pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I am a jerk
TAC produced me
therefore, etc. QED
August 14 at 7:20pm · Unlike · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure I'm not the one making false claims about academic superiority. That's truly pathetic.
August 14 at 7:23pm · Like

Christopher Sebastian 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.
August 14 at 7:28pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure The original post reads: "No other college in America requires as much Aristotle and Thomas as TAC... And its fruits reveal your ignorance and yes I am arrogant." 

In fact, the college requires virtually no sacred theology, and teaches practically nothing Catholic in the entire freshman year. It does not teach Sacred Theology; it does not teach the Faith. Yet, the Faith is the only perfection of Reason. Hence. What we are left with is what Bethea says above, which is a public manifestation of the flaws of a rational animal not educated in the Faith.
August 14 at 7:36pm · Like

Christopher Sebastian What's your definition of Sacred Theology?? And how can you claim it doesn't teach the Faith?
August 14 at 7:38pm · Like

Christopher Sebastian Actually, I fear I made have fallen for what Matthew was trying to warn regarding...trolling. I immediately regret trying to start a regular conversation.
August 14 at 7:39pm · Like · 12

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 14 at 7:40pm · Edited · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson Many people read the senior thesis titles and say things like "Wow, I wish I was reading and studying this stuff." The titles are one of the selling points of TAC. And so is the way in which it puts so much Aristotle and St. Thomas right in front of student faces.
August 14 at 7:41pm · Edited · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Peregrine, can I call you Scott? I like Scott better. Are you on the spectrum?
August 14 at 7:43pm · Like · 8

Kevin Gallagher Psh whatever you guys are like amateurs at pretentiousness
August 14 at 7:44pm · Like · 7

Michael Beitia well the entire East Coast has us beat.
August 14 at 7:44pm · Unlike · 3

Kevin Gallagher to the mannerism born
August 14 at 7:45pm · Like · 2

Jeff Stouffer An investigation of unity and complexity...tasty enterprise.
August 14 at 7:46pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Plus, Scott, I am *not* a rational animal. If you had read your St. Thomas you would know that I'm an "intellectual substance, conjoined to matter"
August 14 at 7:53pm · Unlike · 2

Michael Beitia (and it's not "Bethea" it's Beitia. I know you do it on purpose. Are you sure you're not on the spectrum?)
August 14 at 7:53pm · Like

Joel HF Pater Edmund, welcome to the REAL best FB thread ever.
August 14 at 7:57pm · Unlike · 9

Joel HF <munches popcorn>
August 14 at 7:57pm · Unlike · 14

Peregrine Bonaventure Matthew J. Peterson, I hope you do not truly believe that you have defended your college, especially when you begin up top with such a typically offensive remark. You have not defended your college. But you have helped shed light on it. TAC was founded by a group of extremely arrogant academics, who were reacting to a socio-sacred phenomenon which occured in the 1960s and 70s; and in their arrogrance, they over-reacted. The proposal of TAC, as a result, has no basis in reality today. Due to this hubris reactionism, TAC alum have had little impact on the lifestream of conservative social thought in America, because it is reactionary and defensive. TAC is simply unable to defend its claim that it offers the world a truly Catholic liberal education, because no such thing exists, as the College proposes. This is an issue, because of TAC's claim to have an association with Catholicism.
August 14 at 8:47pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
August 14 at 8:56pm · Unlike · 15

Matthew Reiser My lord what a huge class. (A comment that really only makes serious sense to members of the tribe.)
August 14 at 9:05pm · Like · 3

Jacob Alexander My goodness what an attractive class.
August 14 at 9:11pm · Like · 7

Daniel P. O'Connell *Old TAC'er interjects* ... "In MY day ..."
August 14 at 9:18pm · Like · 1

Katie Duda 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.
August 14 at 9:36pm · Unlike · 10

Bekah Sims Andrews Duda......don't leave a gal hanging.....do share.
August 14 at 10:06pm · Like · 8

Matthew Starr Beckwith Three words: Wyoming Catholic College
August 14 at 10:12pm · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick can anyone tell me the percentage of TAC alumni that enter the religious life? Must be pretty low since it entirely neglects the faith. Does anyone also know the number of conversions that take place during the student's time at TAC?
August 14 at 10:45pm · Like · 9

Daniel P. O'Connell ^satire?
August 14 at 10:45pm · Like · 1

Dominique Martin @Peregrine-- you can think what you want about TAC, and we all know the place isn't perfect. It's nothing but amusing, though, to hear Dr MacArthur and Mr Berquist described as "extremely arrogant"! Though I am, of course, being a TAC grad myself, so arrogant I can't see how arrogant all the other alum are.
August 14 at 10:45pm · Edited · Like · 6

Dominique Martin We may be totally non-Catholic, but at least we can recognize satire when we see it!
August 14 at 10:46pm · Like · 3

Edward Langley I really like it how all the people who hold up Christendom as superior to TAC on these Facebook threads have about as much tact as Attila the Hun.
August 14 at 10:47pm · Like · 9

Dominique Martin Who's Attila the Hun? I went to TAC so I have zero knowledge of history 
August 14 at 10:48pm · Unlike · 12

Edward Langley I'm not quite sure, I've seen him mentioned in P.G. Wodehouse's stories. Perhaps he's some fictional bad guy like Darth Vader.
August 14 at 10:49pm · Like · 13

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 14 at 10:52pm · Like

Dominique Martin What I just don't understand is the point of that whole last sentence.
August 14 at 10:55pm · Unlike · 11

Bekah Sims Andrews You say "argue like a woman" as if it were a bad thing.
August 14 at 10:56pm · Like · 16

Lauren Ogrodnick Pretty sure I've never heard the founders say that they thought what they had done was perfect. In fact I had heard some regrets and changes and disappointments. Were they proud with what they had done, yes! Does that mean they thought it was the perfect and the climax of all life, no!
August 14 at 10:56pm · Unlike · 3

Dominique Martin You're not doing your Alma Mater's reputation any favors yourself....
August 14 at 10:56pm · Unlike · 3

Edward Langley Being a TACer, I learned the important things, like how to spell "Wodehouse", which alcoholic beverages to drink, how to get back into the dorms after curfew.
August 14 at 10:57pm · Like · 15

Liam Collins 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.
August 14 at 11:00pm · Unlike · 19

Daniel P. O'Connell How to get back into dorms after curfew: LIFE SKILLZ.
August 14 at 11:03pm · Like · 11

Adrw Lng Soul face
August 14 at 11:10pm · Like · 5

Joshua Kenz I thank you for these threads...much too long and pointless to get involved now, at least gives a glimpse of people with whom I will not be interacting with in the future And I get consolation from FB, "We're sorry that you've had this experience." So am I.

TAC is not perfect, of course not. Nor is it for everyone. Nor is it the best way for each individual to be educated. But it is the best school for many of us. And it certainly is not inferior to any in its "Catholicity". The insinuation that somehow it is anti-theology, or weak on the faith is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard levelled against it.

I originally wrote more, but why? I don't see a productive discussion here.
August 14 at 11:11pm · Unlike · 17

Benjamin Block 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...
August 14 at 11:14pm · Unlike · 15

Claire Keeler I remember jake gutierrez's thesis was called "Do Angels Move the Planets" but when they posted the defense schedule, it said "angles" instead of "angels". It was a head-scratcher either way....
August 14 at 11:40pm · Like · 6

Claire Keeler 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)
August 14 at 11:43pm · Edited · Like · 5

Claire Keeler Whoa.... starting to read the comments now.....
August 14 at 11:46pm · Like · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick Part of the fun was making silly titles 
August 14 at 11:58pm · Like · 5

Claire Keeler I'm kind of regretting being so critical of TAC thesis titles after reading all these comments. I feel like I've just been through a war and I just want some peace. So I'll amend my statement above to say that I understand why TAC thesis titles can sound so convoluted- it's weighty and abstract stuff we wrestle with there. Most other institutions deal with much more concrete subject matter and it's easier to come up with names for papers you write there. So, no offense meant to the class of 2014 or any other grads.
August 15 at 12:02am · Like · 1

Claire Keeler 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.
August 15 at 12:05am · Like · 1

Joe Zepeda "Most other institutions deal with much more concrete subject matter" Ludicrous titles for papers are a plague of all academia, Claire.
August 15 at 12:06am · Edited · Unlike · 3

Claire Keeler 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.
August 15 at 12:09am · Unlike · 3

Joe Zepeda Oh, right. Take a gander at some humanities dissertation titles (or rather, don't, just take my word for it that they are either straightforwardly pedantic and jargony in a silly way, or just plain silly).
August 15 at 12:22am · Like · 1

Michael Grumbine 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.
August 15 at 12:29am · Like · 5

Aaron Gigliotti I just popped back in after spending a few hours on the planet Earth. What a comment thread! If anyone considering attending TAC or Christendom stumbles across this post, I'm pretty sure Steubenville can expect an application. You guys are nuts!
August 15 at 12:45am · Like · 5

Claire Keeler that actually is how steubenville gets all its applicants
August 15 at 12:46am · Unlike · 12

Joe Zepeda "I thought Steubenville was the only one of these three where people started speaking in tongues...now I'm confused."
August 15 at 12:47am · Unlike · 4

Patrick Laurence Man, if you've drawn Michael Grumbine out of the woodwork, you *know* you have stepped over the line.
August 15 at 12:58am · Like · 5

Timothy Halpin Wow! I'm glad I didn't go to college.
August 15 at 2:00am · Like · 2

John Kunz Katie - mine was quite edited as well!
August 15 at 2:06am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Reading this thread was the most fun I've had in a long time.
August 15 at 2:56am · Like · 3

Monica Murphy 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 . . .
August 15 at 6:36am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund Today being the Solemnity of the Assumption and all, I give thanks to God for my Blessed Mother, who gave me divine life, but also for my earthly mother who gave me natural life, and for TAC, my mother in the in the life of the mind. Perhaps I shall write a treatise in the spirit of St Louis de Monfort on "True Devotion to TAC." So for example I might say: 

«These great souls filled with grace and zeal will be oppose the enemies of God who are raging on all sides. They will be exceptionally devoted to the TAC, and illumined by her light... With one hand they will give battle, overthrowing and crushing Platonists, Newtonians, Molinists, and Thomists of a more lax observance... With the other hand they will build a stronghold of true philosophy, namely TAC.... By word and example they will draw all men to a true devotion to her and though this will make many enemies... This seems to have been foretold by Psalm 58: "The Lord will reign in Jacob and all the ends of the earth. They will be converted towards evening and they will be as hungry as dogs and they will go around the city to find something to eat." This city around which men will roam at the end of the world seeking true Aristotelianism and the appeasement of the hunger they have for Thomism of the strict observance is Thomas Aquinas College, which is called "The City of Thomists"»

Except of course I would never actually say anything like that.
August 15 at 8:38am · Edited · Unlike · 23

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 15 at 9:29am · Like

Joel HF Peregrine stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this TAC grad.' #magesterium #humblerthanthou
August 15 at 9:40am · Unlike · 12

Pater Edmund 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?
August 15 at 9:46am · Edited · Like · 9

Michael Beitia I think Holy Mother the Church might not want your thanks for your "academic" formation.
August 15 at 9:58am · Like · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick 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.
August 15 at 10:15am · Unlike · 6

Michael Beitia ^stop trying to be reasonable. It just shows your arrogance^
August 15 at 10:16am · Like · 10

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 15 at 10:23am · Edited · Like

Nina Rachele I can't believe this is still going on... just commenting so I can get updates...
August 15 at 10:27am · Unlike · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure This is still going on because TAC is unable to defend the "principles" on which it was founded.
August 15 at 10:31am · Edited · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick What does it mean to instruct Sacred Theology in it's fullness?
August 15 at 10:31am · Unlike · 1

Bekah Sims Andrews you do not have the authority to make such "judgements"..........your arrogant remarks which are not arguments.
**********************************************************************
Self awareness is your friend.
August 15 at 10:33am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Instructing Sacred Theology in its fullness means to instruct Sacred Theology in the context of the fullness of divinely revealed truths, and not just a partial set thereof, and not principally natural theology under the guise that this is the fullness of Sacred Theology or the pedagogical basis of what and how the Church teaches.

Bekah, I am not the one making the false, misleading and arrogant claims that TAC and its apologists are making, so your comment is on the level of kindergarten argumentation.
August 15 at 10:38am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick 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?
August 15 at 10:43am · Unlike · 1

Nina Rachele Let me preface this by saying that I think Christendom is a good school and if I had children I would by no means argue them out of attending there if they wanted to go. (you guys have a much better library, too) But if we are discussing mistaken founding principles, how do you defend the Christendom administration's open discouragement of non-Christian and Protestant applicants? I am curious because that policy seems to me to be mistaken in the extreme.
August 15 at 10:51am · Unlike · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick 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)
August 15 at 10:57am · Unlike · 2

Nina Rachele I am also curious as to whether "teaching Sacred Theology in its fullness" as you have described it something which is, er, actually possible. I think TAC's emphasis on natural philosophy is just that--an emphasis, which has its own merits. It prepares TACers better than some other schools to engage with others on certain issues, and it provides a good foundation for further study in theology. The Christendom emphasis on Church history also has its own benefits and prepares them better than TACers to engage with others on mistaken notions they might jave on Church history.
August 15 at 10:58am · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 15 at 10:58am · Like

Nina Rachele *have
August 15 at 10:58am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 15 at 11:01am · Edited · Like

Nina Rachele I am very glad to hear that, when I went to my admissions interview in 2006 I was informed that they were only looking for Catholic applicants.
August 15 at 11:01am · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I do not disbelieve you, and I am sorry to hear that. Perhaps you were being interviewed by a bad apple?
August 15 at 11:02am · Edited · Like

Nina Rachele The conversation did seem a little strange to me... it was the last straw in my decision not to even apply, despite the very tempting library.
August 15 at 11:04am · Unlike · 1

Dominique Martin "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.
August 15 at 11:06am · Unlike · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, that is a tempting library.
August 15 at 11:06am · Like

Michael Beitia 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
August 15 at 11:08am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Dominique, no I did not realize that, but thank you for pointing that out. The thing is, I did read the book, and I have seen the movie. And this is not a book or a movie. TAC inverts the relationship between Faith and Reason and produces the opposite of intellectual humility.
August 15 at 11:09am · Like

Nina Rachele I don't think "Reason perfecting Faith" is the correct way to view the TAC venture, but rather "Reason illuminating and supporting Faith."
August 15 at 11:09am · Unlike · 6

Michael Beitia shhhh, you'll let him in on our gnosis
August 15 at 11:10am · Unlike · 7

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 15 at 11:11am · Like

Michael Beitia Scott, will you just spell it right?
August 15 at 11:12am · Unlike · 4

Nina Rachele 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.
August 15 at 11:12am · Unlike · 2

Christopher Sebastian Isn't all of Scripture divine revelation? It's such a shame that TAC never has you read the Bib...oh wait, all of Freshman theology.
August 15 at 11:12am · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia without the magisterium however. (I beat Scott to the punch)
August 15 at 11:13am · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Nina, the problem is the TAC curriculum; it is not the value of the theses written. If a curriculum is not set up formally so that Faith perfects reason, then what is the quality of reason that "illumines" the Faith?
August 15 at 11:14am · Edited · Like

Aaron Gigliotti 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.
August 15 at 11:15am · Unlike · 9

Dominique Martin Really? I thought you only read the first couple chapters? If you read he whole book you will have a legitimate basis for a review. You don't have to like the book after reading the whole thing, but at least you'd know what you're talking about.
August 15 at 11:17am · Unlike · 2

Dominique Martin Let's not do the TAC vs. Cdom thing!! They can both stand on their own merits.
August 15 at 11:18am · Like · 6

Nina Rachele I am thinking primarily of Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine when I speak of reason "illuminating"-- that is, we can say there has been a development of doctrine and further understanding of the Faith without saying that the Faith has altered or changed. In the same way, TAC's emphasis on natural theology does not mean that the supernatural effects of grace have been somehow negated or argued against. did that make sense as an analogy? I am not sure I am saying it quite right...
August 15 at 11:20am · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia don't bother. this drum-beating is two years old.
August 15 at 11:20am · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Christopher, Scripture is only part of revelation. Again, it is context. 

Aaron, you demonstrate quite well that TAC is unable to defend the "principles" on which its curriculum was founded.

Dominique, again you are not addressing the central issue here, which is that TAC was founded by over-reactionaries who established a curriculum which does not place Faith and Reason in proper context, and this has resulted in a character of hubris reasoning in its students, instead of students informed by Faith which has perfected their reason.

It is clear that TAC is unable to address this central issue, and I rest my case.
August 15 at 11:21am · Like

Michael Beitia endless repetition isn't "resting" Scott
August 15 at 11:21am · Unlike · 8

Aaron Gigliotti Yeah, I didn't go to TAC, smart guy.
August 15 at 11:21am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia it's more of a Nietzschean "eternal return of the same"
August 15 at 11:22am · Unlike · 11

Peregrine Bonaventure Bethea, resting is resting. TAC is unable to account for itself, because it's curriculum is ill-founded, on this central issue of the relationship between Faith and Reason.
August 15 at 11:23am · Like

Nina Rachele Off to do an errand, have fun kids...
August 15 at 11:25am · Like

Aaron Gigliotti If I were one of those fundamentalists who hates the Catholic Church and believes the Pope is the Antichrist, and someone told me to design a bot that would pose as a Catholic in order to discredit the Church, I would design something very similar to Peregrine Bonaventure.
August 15 at 11:25am · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia His name is Scott
August 15 at 11:27am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Scott-bot
August 15 at 11:27am · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick 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?
August 15 at 11:29am · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure I'm sorry you guys aren't able to mount a credible defense of the curriculum.
August 15 at 11:32am · Like

Michael Beitia I'm sorry you can't spell. Or be coherent.
August 15 at 11:37am · Like · 3

Alex Lessard Trolls aside, through the unsurpassed curriculum and excellents tutors at TAC, our daughter (in the 2014 list) was able to explore the relationship between science & theology in a more profound way than I saw in many years of grad school in theology at a major Catholic university. I don't know of any other place that builds that cultivated freedom of thought into its program. Certainly not at the other schools mentioned here, despite their other merits.
August 15 at 11:38am · Unlike · 17

Ursi Engebretsen 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... 
August 15 at 11:40am · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Really, Mr. Bethea?

I think the concern is very, very coherent. 1) the curriculum at TAC does not give pre-eminence of place to the fullness of faith and sacred theology, but gives this place to natural theology; 2) this leads to intellectual hubris, and an imperfection of reason, (as is demonstrated by many of your comments).
August 15 at 11:43am · Like

Michael Beitia there is a time for argument, and a time for the club. the time for argument has long passed
August 15 at 11:44am · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure That's a dodge, Bethea. TAC has never answered this concern, because the concern is well-founded, and TAC is off-base.
August 15 at 11:47am · Like

Adrw Lng "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
August 15 at 11:47am · Unlike · 8

Michael Beitia ^as translated from hieroglyphics^
August 15 at 11:48am · Unlike · 8

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 15 at 11:53am · Like

Michael Beitia a thug that can spell, Mr. Weinberg
August 15 at 11:55am · Edited · Unlike · 1

Michael Beitia 4-0-0 S C T A C (you'll have to imagine the gang signs) Matthew J. Peterson can demonstrate
August 15 at 11:55am · Edited · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Yup, you're a thug.
August 15 at 11:57am · Like

Michael Beitia I'm glad we both agree on that
August 15 at 11:57am · Unlike · 1

Michael Beitia (he says to the thread hijacking rattling drum)
August 15 at 11:58am · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 15 at 12:01pm · Like

Michael Beitia Closer. don't you have some health and human servicing to do?
August 15 at 12:02pm · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Thug.
August 15 at 12:03pm · Like

Michael Beitia like most of the rest of this, just because you say it, doesn't make it true
August 15 at 12:11pm · Unlike · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 15 at 12:15pm · Like

Michael Beitia I have my gang-banging minions to respond to your "concerns". And if you had read your Aristotle, you'd recognize the reference
August 15 at 12:16pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Your comment is ridiculous.
August 15 at 12:18pm · Like

Michael Beitia you're just now figuring that out?
August 15 at 12:19pm · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure OK, this is really a joke.
August 15 at 12:21pm · Like

Michael Beitia It is. Glad you caught on.
August 15 at 12:21pm · Unlike · 6

Christopher Sebastian FIN?
See Translation
August 15 at 12:39pm · Like · 1

Joe Zepeda Don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll troll troll.
August 15 at 12:47pm · Like · 8

John Hall Oh my.
August 15 at 1:04pm · Like · 2

Joe Zepeda "No longer receive notifications about Matthew J. Peterson's link" - check!
August 15 at 1:14pm · Like · 4

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

Or Heraclitus, "The dog returns to it's own vomit"
August 15 at 1:16pm · Unlike · 6

Michael Grumbine Your inference, as usual, is so right, Patrick - I should've stayed in the shadows despite the marginally clever troll. 

'Marginally' conceded only because I'm now weighing the amusing possibility that dear Scotty truly is blind to his own nature on this thread.

My bad. Well really, it's Peterson's bad, but who can blame him? The lack of a properly enlightened background in authentic Sacred Theology has clearly had a strange, softening effect on his mind.
August 15 at 1:18pm · Edited · Unlike · 3

Anne Marie "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.
August 15 at 1:18pm · Like · 3

Anne Marie Peace, friends. Let's not let a little online squabble divide us. Our lady of the Assumption, queen of peace, love and humility, pray for us!
August 15 at 1:24pm · Like · 4

Erik Bootsma

August 15 at 1:24pm · Unlike · 18

Michael Grumbine Win. ^^^
August 15 at 1:25pm · Unlike · 4

Michael Grumbine And well put, Alex.
August 15 at 1:26pm · Like · 1

Erik Bootsma

August 15 at 1:28pm · Like · 3

John Hall 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.
August 15 at 1:34pm · Unlike · 26

Michael Beitia I just look for any good excuse to flash TAC gang signs
August 15 at 1:35pm · Like · 7

Erik Bootsma I flash that every time I go to the in law's house. Three at Christendom now.
August 15 at 1:37pm · Unlike · 2

JA Escalante you know a conversation about the philosophical particularities of the founders (often unspoken at TAC- you had to poke around to find out sometimes, or just pay extremely close attention), and possible tendencies to intransigence regarding those, would really be worth having, but untrolled
August 15 at 1:39pm · Edited · Like · 6

JA Escalante 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)
August 15 at 1:47pm · Like · 3

Jeff Neill http://warrencountyreport.com/.../south_river_and_the... Is trolling a habit, a knack, an art, or a skill?

Warren County Report: South River and the Hatch Act
warrencountyreport.com
« Enchanted Dragon Mirror Maze a roaring good time | Main | ‘Oh, people will come, people will most definitely come’ »
August 15 at 1:54pm · Like · 3

Erik Bootsma I think Inigo had the last word apparently.
August 15 at 2:14pm · Like

Nina Rachele I would like to have a discussion with someone about the constitution of the curriculum, for example, I am curious as to whether anyone else thinks the Politics should be read in seminar instead of tutorial.
August 15 at 2:20pm · Like · 1

Dominic Bolin 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.
August 15 at 3:03pm · Unlike · 14

Ken Masugi Would Aristotle sky-dive? Who do you say I am?
August 15 at 7:23pm · Like

John Tuttle I agree, the sky-diving Aristotle thesis sounds great! "Boady, this is your F#@%ing wake up call, man. I am a PHILOSOPHER!"
August 15 at 10:33pm · Like · 3

John Kunz For everyone's next tattoo.

August 16 at 2:29am · Like · 3

Pater Edmund 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...
August 16 at 4:43am · Edited · Like · 7

Peter Halpin Closing time...
August 16 at 5:13am · Like · 3

Joe Zepeda 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?
August 16 at 12:39pm · Like · 3

Claire Keeler Michael D. Byrne's authoritative treatise on Hegel, and let's have a moment of silence for the thesis-that-never-was, Joe Cheney's rejected thesis, De Urinatione.
August 16 at 12:49pm · Like · 7

Pater Edmund 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."
August 16 at 1:31pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia Nathan Ciarleglio's "the idea of limit in the Histories of Herodotus"
August 16 at 1:44pm · Like · 2

Pater Edmund 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."
August 16 at 1:47pm · Like · 6

Ryan Burke There was one on Dante's De Monarchia, but I can't recall who wrote it. And Burke's on how Pater Edmond is wrong was OK
August 16 at 2:02pm · Like · 4

Ryan Burke Can we still get old theses from TAC? Has anyone done that lately?
August 16 at 2:03pm · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Email Mark Kretchmer
August 16 at 2:21pm · Like · 1

Angela Lessard Let's keep going, we can't quit before getting to a nice perfect number 300, can we?
August 16 at 3:14pm · Like · 2

Thomas Quackenbush Elizabeth Quackenbush Brideshead thesis.
August 16 at 5:08pm · Like · 6

Samantha Cohoe I accidentally liked a dozen comments signed in as my husband. Friend me, Peterson! I was dangerously close to missing this thread entirely.
August 16 at 7:28pm · Edited · Like · 6

Nick Zepeda Nerdfest!! Ha.
August 16 at 7:55pm · Like

Joe Zepeda Yes, I forgot about Elizabeth Quack's thesis - really excellent.
August 16 at 8:47pm · Like · 3

Anne Marie I just can't resist....
August 16 at 10:58pm · Like

Anne Marie Being the 300th comment! Oh ya!
August 16 at 10:58pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Why do I love reading these titles every year?
August 16 at 11:14pm · Like · 1

Angela Lessard Joe, do you get these sent to you, or did you have a personal connection to these?
August 17 at 12:24am · Like

Joe Zepeda I had a personal connection to all except Miss Quackenbush's, which her esteemed father linked on facebook.
August 17 at 2:50am · Like · 1

Joe Zepeda And here it is: https://docs.google.com/.../0BxhNFgNx8xzUUHJlazdC.../edit...
Brideshead Thesis.pdf - Google Drive
docs.google.com
August 17 at 3:09am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund Roy Axel Coats on the division of the fine arts.
August 17 at 4:59am · Like · 4

Pater Edmund Peter Knuffke on transcendentals.
August 17 at 5:00am · Like · 2

Tom Sundaram Dr. McArthur once told me that the flourishing of a liberal education requires that we esteem each man our better, as Paul said, and not be puffed up. Keeping that in mind, I will say I wrote a Dante thesis out of which some people got a pretty decent kick.

"I Saw The Scattered Elements Unite": Justice, Mercy and Order in the Divine Comedy.

I went into it hoping to get TACers more interested in Dante, and partly as a result of this the school is now stocking Tony Esolen's radiantly awesome translation in the bookstore, so I consider it a personal success.
August 17 at 5:01am · Like · 4

Tom Sundaram 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. 
August 17 at 5:04am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund Tom Short on torture (the first draft, not the final version after Mr. Goyette persuaded him to water down the main argument).
August 17 at 7:37am · Like · 4

Clayton Brockman Oh snap, I remember that one.
August 17 at 7:45am · Like · 3

Ryan Burke All the more interesting in light of Capt Short's profession.
August 17 at 8:42am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman No one should forget Alex Wiseman's brilliant thesis on Kepler.
August 17 at 9:44am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman I may be speaking to soon, but I think the troll is gone. I have encountered this one before (though I think under a different name). Joe Zepeda is spot on. Do not feed him. There is no possible dialogue, no possible point of discussion.
August 17 at 9:46am · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Oh, and for good measure:
TAC is the best and I am the best!!! 
USA! USA! USA!
August 17 at 10:03am · Unlike · 4

Margaret Grimm Blackwell Joe , do you have a copy of yours online? I read some of it and was frankly blown away. But then, you've long demonstrated an uncanny ability for shedding new light on old ideas starting with your observation-at the age of 4- that one can't be and not be a rotten egg at the same time.
August 17 at 10:16am · Like

Aaron Gigliotti "There Are But Three Novels: How Reading Authors Other Than Waugh, O'Connor, and Undset Marks One as Insufficiently Catholic."
August 17 at 10:42am · Like · 6

Isak Benedict Looking up from reading this thread all the way to the end was, for a moment, like staring at an alien world. I don't remember the last time I was this disoriented. Madness. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFCM6TZgTMI

Its a MADHOUSE! (Planet of the Apes, 1968) - Edited
Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
August 17 at 12:27pm · Like · 4

Liam Collins Kevin Kasson wrote a pretty cool one. And I personally learned a lot from Margaret Ryland's. Michael Masteller's was huge as well.
August 17 at 1:27pm · Like · 3

Liam Collins and mine was, well, at least controversial enough to draw over 80 people to my defense, according to a few people who tried to count.
August 17 at 1:31pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia my defense was standing room only, but the thesis was crap and the defense worse
August 17 at 1:54pm · Like · 4

Liam Collins haha. My defense was a bit of a letdown as well. But I reread the thesis for the first time a few months ago, and I still agree with it pretty strongly at least.
August 17 at 2:03pm · Like

Edward Langley 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.
August 17 at 2:34pm · Edited · Like · 3

John Kunz Ok wait - when did the love fest happen? Is the bickering done???

Surprised no one has brought up Tim Furlan's dissertation... In our time, that was the event of all events... I had over standing room only at mine, but his filled most of the hallway in the entire classroom building... And it was amazing.
August 17 at 2:41pm · Like · 6

Edward Langley Also, Philip D. Knuffke's thesis on imagination as the cause of error and David Freer's thesis on predestination were quite good.
August 17 at 2:59pm · Like · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick Mary Colette Masteller's on Anna Karenina
August 17 at 3:00pm · Like · 2

Róisín Grimm 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.
August 17 at 3:59pm · Unlike · 7

Liam Collins Edward Langley, here's the precis:
Christ says: “my Father is at work until now, so I am at work.”
This thesis is fundamentally an endeavor to be fully open to God's ongoing work in the world, a work which occurs above all in and through the human race.
It is revealed to the Christian and seen with increasing clarity by the scientist that the world around us is not unchanging and eternal, but fundamentally historical. Historical development occurs in many ways, including a development of the cosmos's awareness of itself in man. This development is intelligible to the Christian in it's guidance by, and orientation towards, God. The Christian knows that the created universe is a sign of God, and that God is at work in the perfection of this sign.
These insights, among other things, enable one to fully embrace the pressingly apparent fact that science has progressed in deeply meaningful ways in the course of its history, most noticeably in the phenomenal insights had by empirical science in the last several hundred years. These developments are not simply the inconsequential details following from eternal, divine principles; they are wonderful insights into the makings of a universe in which God continues to be intimately present, and for the sake of which the general laws of science exist.
August 17 at 4:29pm · Like · 6

Edward Langley 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.
August 17 at 6:24pm · Like

Joel HF Aletheia Herreid Née Price wrote one on Beauty and Art that was amazing.
August 17 at 6:46pm · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick 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!
August 17 at 7:07pm · Like · 1

Liam Collins haha, yeah, I do get the feeling that Edward probably has a response to any of the three options which he just proposed.
August 17 at 7:08pm · Like · 1

Liam Collins which I would be happy to hear, but I'm going to pick my poison after dashing off to dinner right now...
August 17 at 7:09pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley Actually, I think I'm alright with the last of the three Lauren, shh, I've been working hard to adopt a new, more attentive, image.

EDIT: perhaps this conversation should end here, we have exactly 333 comments ...
August 17 at 9:21pm · Edited · Like · 1

Edmund T. Dean I learned all the pickup lines and skipped the Thomism. Then I went to seminary. I MAY HAVE DONE THIS WRONG
August 17 at 9:50pm · Like · 7

Peregrine Bonaventure A good Catholic college provides students with a curriculum that helps them develop a theological habit of spirit. A theological habit of spirit supports the reasonability of devotion. This habit always begins with intellectual assent to sacred truths, revealed, which cannot be known with reason. The theological habit of spirit seeks understanding. It does not begin with natural truths or proofs and, if it is excluded, undercuts the role of Faith to perfect reason. It also undercut theological speculation.
August 18 at 4:07pm · Like

Tom Sundaram "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 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 frie…
August 18 at 4:11pm · Like · 8

Peregrine Bonaventure Much of history and science and the universe is outside the scope of revelation. Dr. Warren Carroll leaned on the term "salvation history" heavily to help show how God works in time and space. So, he adhered strictly to this idea of a theological habit of mind. This habit begins with intellectual assent to revealed truths. Without this habit, the Catholic student may fall prey to wide ranging speculation which effectively imposes imaginary specifications onto the Faith.
August 18 at 4:24pm · Like

Tom Sundaram 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.
August 18 at 4:38pm · Like · 5

John Herreid I'm just glad that I can rely on the Magisterium for guidance instead of some guy on the internet armed with a pseudonym and a glossary.
August 18 at 4:38pm · Unlike · 9

Lauren Ogrodnick 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)
August 18 at 5:04pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It's telling that TAC is unable to admit that theology proceeds from assent to divinely revealed truths, not from reason, Aristotle or Euclid or valid syllogism. That must be because you want to be seen as the smartest people on the planet. Sounds a little insecure to me,
August 18 at 5:05pm · Like

Edward Langley Have you even read question one of the prima pars? If you did, you wouldn't make such a completely idiotic statement.
August 18 at 5:21pm · Like · 8

Edward Langley Because TAC generally promotes Aquinas's understanding of the relation between fatih and reason.
August 18 at 5:22pm · Like · 3

Jason Van Boom Sweet honey on the rock! The Peregrine troll again?

Will this thread never end?
August 18 at 5:24pm · Edited · Like · 6

Jason Van Boom Edward Langley Ignore Pilgrim Goodeffort.
August 18 at 5:24pm · Unlike · 3

Jason Van Boom Let's change the subject.

Is it true that the goat-stag tastes like chicken?
August 18 at 5:26pm · Like · 6

John Herreid Speaking of goats, what is this? Is it goat, or is it barrel?

August 18 at 5:28pm · Unlike · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 18 at 5:35pm · Like

Jason Van Boom John Herreid That's a very good question! I think it's an allegory on modernism. A satire on the confusion of discrete with continuous quantity.
August 18 at 5:43pm · Like · 4

Joe Zepeda 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.
August 18 at 5:43pm · Unlike · 7

Jason Van Boom I like turtles.
August 18 at 5:45pm · Like · 7

Jason Van Boom Joe Zepeda Matthew J. Peterson If Aristotle and Batman got in a fight, who would win?
August 18 at 5:48pm · Unlike · 6

Lauren Ogrodnick I'm starting to wonder what life would be like without this thread
August 18 at 5:48pm · Unlike · 10

Jason Van Boom This thread should go on forever! Seriously!

Let's see how long we can make it.
August 18 at 5:49pm · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure If TAC assents to the sacred truth from which sacred theology and the Catholic Faith stems, then why does TAC not include all of it, but only includes some of it. St. Thomas frowns upon that sort of thing. Perhaps it's because TAC wants to think it can reason more impressively about complex things. But reason illuminating Faith is not a maxim of the Faith.

And who is this Scott fellow you keep refering to? 

I am The Peregrine.
August 18 at 5:56pm · Like

John Herreid 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.
August 18 at 5:57pm · Like · 9

Jason Van Boom I'm Batman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0F1fEQeWF8

The Ultimate "I'm Batman!" Compilation
PART 2 IS HERE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUXvMymZC7A&feature=youtu.be Just to let you know, my favorite one is Eric Matthews from Boy Meets World (1:19...
August 18 at 5:58pm · Like · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick This whole "all" of Sacred Theology seems like it would take longer than the life of the earth to accomplish.
August 18 at 5:58pm · Unlike · 5

Erik Bootsma Does all include all of St. Augustine? I've heard it said no two men such as men are today could possibly read all that he has written.
August 18 at 6:01pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Reading "the most Aristotle and St. Thomas" is not the measure of the most excellent Catholic thinker, student or theologian. Get it?
August 18 at 6:01pm · Like

John Herreid "You must begin a reading program immediately so that you may understand the crises of our age. Begin with the late Romans, including Boethius, of course. Then you should dip rather extensively into early Medieval. You may skip the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. That is mostly dangerous propaganda. Now that I think of it, you had better skip the Romantics and the Victorians, too. For the contemporary period, you should study some selected comic books. I recommend Batman especially, for he tends to transcend the abysmal society in which he's found himself. His morality is rather rigid, also. I rather respect Batman.” 
—Ignatius J. Reilly, Confederacy of Dunces
August 18 at 6:02pm · Like · 12

Jason Van Boom I only read St Augustine and Batman.
August 18 at 6:03pm · Unlike · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure See, you can't address the issue, but only resort to idiocy. You're in denial.
August 18 at 6:04pm · Like

Margaret Grimm Blackwell For The Peregrine.

August 18 at 6:05pm · Like · 10

Erik Bootsma Do tell us then what "Sacred Theology" is comprised of.
August 18 at 6:05pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Self-referential, echo-chamber, non-critical, idiocy.
August 18 at 6:06pm · Like

Jason Van Boom Don't feed the troll!
August 18 at 6:06pm · Like · 2

Jason Van Boom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlmc8HpkI4

JOAN BAEZ ~ I Dreamed I Saw St Augustine ~
Joan Baez ~ I DREAMED I SAW SAINT AUGUSTINE ~ The significance of this song is that Saint Augustine ( 354 - 430) was the first to speak out on the importance...
August 18 at 6:08pm · Like · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick Are you telling us something about this thread? 
August 18 at 6:11pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 18 at 6:12pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I will tell you you have it wrong, Mr. Bootsma, and most certainly not quite right, which with this matter is wrong.
August 18 at 6:14pm · Like

Jason Van Boom Tom Sundaram Tell us abut Dante.
August 18 at 6:14pm · Like · 2

Tom Sundaram Ooh, yes! I think I will!

So Dante was a 14th century Italian from Florence. One day when he was nine, he saw...

A WOMAN.

(if you want me to continue the story, please applaud or indicate thus otherwise.  )
August 18 at 6:16pm · Like · 6

Lauren Ogrodnick No, tell us ALL about Dante 
August 18 at 6:16pm · Like · 7

Jason Van Boom The fullness. Give us the fullness of Dante.

Because this thread MUST NOT END!
August 18 at 6:17pm · Unlike · 5

Tom Sundaram 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? 
August 18 at 6:18pm · Like · 2

Jason Van Boom Love letters? A limerick?
August 18 at 6:18pm · Like

Tom Sundaram You know, I was just going to say "dirty limericks" if nobody said anything.
August 18 at 6:19pm · Like · 6

Tom Sundaram Poetry! And Dante wrote poetry for her. Initially it was really bad by the standards of the day, which means that to this day classicists still nerd out over it. But eventually it got pretty good, and he invented a new style of poetry, the "dolce stil nuovo."
August 18 at 6:20pm · Like · 3

Jason Van Boom Going to bed. (Past 1 am in Estonia). Can't wait to see how long this thread gets by the time I wake up!
August 18 at 6:20pm · Unlike · 3

Tom Sundaram Heh, I have to study Italian, myself, but I will tell a little more.
August 18 at 6:20pm · Like · 1

Tom Sundaram 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.
August 18 at 6:21pm · Like · 3

Jason Van Boom He was pretty smitten, eh?
August 18 at 6:22pm · Like · 1

Jason Van Boom We need a sign up sheet to keep this thread going. Like Perpetual Adoration.
August 18 at 6:23pm · Like · 3

Tom Sundaram Now, a poem like that, you can't just write about the Shire - you need some Minas Tirith, and a lot of Silmarillon. So in order to do even a halfway good job, he needed to start by getting his liberal education on. From his studies of Philosophy, he produced three very notable works: the Convivio, or banquet, his metaphysics (his Silmarillon, if you will!); the De Monarchia, his political philosophy per se in light of the Incarnation; and finally the De Vulgari Eloquentia, his De Interpretatione or his Elvish, if you'd like.
August 18 at 6:23pm · Like

Jason Van Boom Off to bed! Keep it up!
August 18 at 6:24pm · Like

Tom Sundaram These three works are still epochal works in first philosophy, political theory and linguistics respectively, and show signs of his education by both the Dominicans and the Franciscans, as well as his rhetorical training under Brunetto Latini, Dante's "Ser Brunetto." But to the Divine Commedia, they were only to be handmaids, as Philosophy is to Theology. (Hence his enduring belief in Philosophy as a Lady - in fact, as Mary, "our tainted nature's solitary boast", was the handmaid of the Lord, so philosophy is the handmaid of the Trinity.)
August 18 at 6:26pm · Edited · Like · 2

Tom Sundaram 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.
August 18 at 6:30pm · Like · 1

Dominique Martin "I'm just glad that I can rely on the Magisterium for guidance instead of some guy on the internet armed with a pseudonym and a glossary."
AMEN to this.
August 18 at 6:31pm · Like · 7

Tom Sundaram 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.
August 18 at 6:32pm · Like

Tom Sundaram Okay, now my fingers are tired. Maybe more later. Someone else needs to pick up the baton. 
August 18 at 6:32pm · Like · 1

Erik Bootsma 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.
August 18 at 6:40pm · Like · 1

Erik Bootsma Again,

August 18 at 6:41pm · Unlike · 4

Matthew J. Peterson Dude. I logged off of the Book of Faces for days...AND IT'S ALIVE!
August 18 at 6:50pm · Unlike · 9

Matthew J. Peterson This thread is a testament to the naive but earnest nature of Thomas Aquinas College graduates everywhere. Reason, Logic, and even Rhetoric sometimes are of no use, people.
August 18 at 6:51pm · Unlike · 21

Lauren Ogrodnick Yeah, but you can't use sticks on Facebook. 
August 18 at 6:52pm · Unlike · 7

Daniel P. O'Connell I think we need to push the number of comments on this thread up over 400. Who's with me? *puts hand to ear*
August 18 at 6:57pm · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson AMERICA, HECK YEAH
August 18 at 7:11pm · Like · 4

Rebecca Bratten Weiss Naive and earnest....good description of the TAC ethos.
August 18 at 7:15pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 18 at 7:24pm · Like

Susan Peterson I comment as a St. Johnnie. I don't think the point of TAC is to instruct in Sacred Theology as a subject, but rather to teach young people how to read and think while living in a Catholic milieu. They are supposed to have the foundation for continuing to learn about the faith, for evaluating new ideas which come along, for being informed Catholics and informed citizens. It isn't a seminary!
August 18 at 7:30pm · Like · 3

Max Summe Mr. (Scott) Peregeine (Weinberg) Bonaventure: Did you go to Christendom?
August 18 at 7:30pm · Like · 1

Tom Sundaram Susan: There's a LOT of Theology, and the whole program is ordered to its study. (Peregrine is really, really not someone worth discussing this with, I promise you.)
August 18 at 7:31pm · Edited · Unlike · 5

Susan Peterson But it isn't indoctrination and that sounds like what Mr Bonadventure is pushing for.
August 18 at 7:34pm · Like

Susan Peterson I only wish I had a chance to study like that. I wish you had a summer graduate institute like SJC so I could go through even a shadow of your program.
August 18 at 7:36pm · Like · 1

Tom Sundaram 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.
August 18 at 7:37pm · Like · 3

Edmund T. Dean I can sympathise with Susan's point (though my perspective is pretty limited having done only one full year). The theology seems fairly pedestrian - extremely orthodox and superb for what it is, but as the almighty Dr. McArthur said to me once, "you probably shouldn't come here for scholarship." Given that the foundations of Catholic theology are notably absent from high school curricula, maybe this back-to-basics approach is necessary.
August 18 at 7:37pm · Unlike · 1

Max Summe 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...
August 18 at 7:38pm · Unlike · 5

Tom Sundaram Thanks for the kind words for the program, Susan! 

Edmund raises a good point, which is that catechesis is falling off, but I think it's kind of strange to think that has to be fixed by turning undergraduate theology into an RCIA program or a grad school.
August 18 at 7:38pm · Like · 2

Edmund T. Dean 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.
August 18 at 7:45pm · Unlike · 7

Tom Sundaram I can't say I ever reached a point in my Theology MA where I was totally out of my TAC comfort zone as far as understanding the ideas at hand.
August 18 at 7:46pm · Unlike · 7

Edmund T. Dean 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 
August 18 at 7:48pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I'm really starting to enjoy Peregrine's off base, left-field, wack-ass (for lack of a better term) critiques. Set up something no one is saying, attack it violently, then repeat. and repeat. aaaaaand repeat.
"The sign out front says if I don't like it it's free. I don't like it"

"there's no such sig-"

"I said I don't like it, it should be free"

"but there's no-"

"but the sign says free"

this could work for me in "real" life
August 18 at 7:49pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 18 at 7:50pm · Like

Michael Beitia nah, not much of a sports fan, really
August 18 at 7:51pm · Unlike · 5

Edmund T. Dean sec let me get my cheerleading outfit
August 18 at 7:51pm · Unlike · 6

Michael Beitia make sure it is dress-code approved
August 18 at 7:52pm · Unlike · 9

Michael Beitia 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
August 18 at 7:53pm · Unlike · 6

Edmund T. Dean admittedly I may have my eyes glazed over from having made a lot of lasting friendships and rediscovered my vocation there ^^
August 18 at 7:54pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 420
August 18 at 7:57pm · Like · 5

Edmund T. Dean btw if you're from TAC and are reading this and you find yourself in London or thereabouts, this seminarian wants to treat you to dinner and a pint. Goodnight all
August 18 at 7:59pm · Unlike · 7

Matthew J. Peterson 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*.
August 18 at 8:03pm · Edited · Unlike · 16

Erik Bootsma Yes Scott, theology is the fullness of the faith, but what is it that is "missing" of that in the curriculum at TAC? Do please tell.
August 18 at 8:03pm · Unlike · 3

John Kunz but it's a douchey dragon, isn't it, Matthew? not just a regular dragon...
August 18 at 8:10pm · Like · 4

Martin G. Snigg --->A Structural Reexamination of the Angelic Hierarchies for the Illumination of Man as a Cosmological Being

--->The Cosmic Game: Angelic Causality in the Material Realm
Thomas Quackenbush <---

--->The Stuff That Matters: The Atom as an Element

^Need the above for my current work.

Could have pasted them all but, for me, would like to read.

“The Clerk’s Tale”: An Insufficient Account of How to Accept Trial from God 

“You Are Among Marvels That You Do Not Understand”: An Investigation into the Parallel Between the Character of Orual and the Land of Glome
August 18 at 8:16pm · Like · 4

Joe Zepeda 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.
August 18 at 8:18pm · Unlike · 22

Dominique Martin Nice try, Joe. But that makes way too much sense for Mr. Boneventure to accept as truth.
August 18 at 8:24pm · Like · 3

Isak Benedict "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.
August 18 at 8:24pm · Unlike · 4

Maximilian Nightingale I can't believe I just spent the last [...] minutes catching up on this thread.
August 18 at 8:25pm · Unlike · 7

John Kunz And let's be fair mr Benedict. It's a goatSTAG!!! C'mon people.
August 18 at 8:26pm · Unlike · 7

Rebecca Bratten Weiss Joe: the fulness of the faith can't fit into any curriculum.
August 18 at 8:30pm · Unlike · 3

Maximilian Nightingale 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.
August 18 at 8:34pm · Unlike · 4

Matthew J. Peterson As a dog returneth to its vomit, so a Facebooker returneth to this thread.
August 18 at 8:34pm · Unlike · 16

Michael Beitia 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
August 18 at 8:45pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia and you didn't have to jump straight to "dragon", Peterson, wikipedia is instructive. I think maybe "slime-troll"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

Troll (Dungeons & Dragons) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
While trolls can be found throughout folklores worldwide, the D&D troll has little in common with these. Instead it was inspired partly by myth, and partly by a regenerating troll that appears in Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.[1] This includes their appearance, as tall skinny humanoid…
August 18 at 8:51pm · Edited · Like · 3

Marie Pitt-Payne 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.... 
August 18 at 8:56pm · Unlike · 13

Lauren Ogrodnick Wow! That's awesome!
August 18 at 8:57pm · Unlike · 2

Marie Pitt-Payne It really was a great preparation! 
August 18 at 9:00pm · Like · 1

Bekah Sims Andrews Max Summe, clearly PeregrineScottWhatshisname asked TAC to the prom and was turned down.
August 18 at 9:13pm · Unlike · 7

Michael Beitia lastly, Peterson (for now) we need video of S C T A C 400
August 18 at 9:24pm · Like

Ryan Burke Peregrine is not passing the Turing Test. It's clearly some kind of performance art.
August 18 at 11:04pm · Like · 5

Nina Rachele whaaaaaaat is going on here
August 19 at 12:07am · Like · 4

Isak Benedict "If a man cannot cross a river on its own terms,
Then he doesn't deserve the other side."
August 19 at 12:12am · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell 444 w00t!
August 19 at 12:13am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Well, my gnosis tells me 496 is a perfect number. Maybe someone should aim for that
August 19 at 8:43am · Like

Pater Edmund Christendom has produced some great senior theses too. For example Dane Joseph Weber on intellectual property: http://dane.weber.org/concept/thesis.html
August 19 at 10:39am · Unlike · 2

Pater Edmund I will always be grateful to Peregrine for inspiring this discussion:
http://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/.../unwritten-tradition/

Unwritten Tradition
sancrucensis.wordpress.com
Searching through the passages of Catholic teaching on the relation of Scripture and Tradition in the indispensable pdf of Denzinger-Hünermann, I was struck by how often they use some variation on ...
August 19 at 10:42am · Edited · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 19 at 10:52am · Edited · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure If someone has a pen name, that is fair. Certainly, no more robust discussion on Faith and philosophy occurs than among the TAC family. I'm just saying, we need to examine our faith and theology. Not to question it endlessly, but to rely on it, so it does what it's supposed to do; so it perfects our reason and nature, and leads us to goodness and devotion. A strongly-worded criticism is not malicious. A strong defense will stand on its own and place things in better focus. Assent to the sacred truths of the Faith, in its entirety, is an act of the heart and the intellect -- and is a valid starting point for theological inquiry. The Liberal Arts were intended to support this inquiry.
August 19 at 11:32am · Unlike · 3

Shannon Maguire 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.
August 19 at 11:38am · Unlike · 5

Luke Halpin No comment
August 19 at 12:00pm · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 19 at 12:22pm · Like

Michael Beitia exactly, and we all know that St. Thomas when discussing the Holy Trinity, actually reasons to it from human understanding, and the articles are not explicating a mystery of the faith, nor a dogma, but rather proving that God is necessarily a Trinity from math and stuff.
August 19 at 12:52pm · Unlike · 1

Michael Beitia that's nothing compared to how he proves that sacraments exist from historical necessity.
August 19 at 12:53pm · Unlike · 1

Michael Beitia and that's how I studied - like a good Marxist unraveling the historical truths that dialectically appear through the seminar method
August 19 at 12:54pm · Unlike · 2

Adrw Lng 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."
August 19 at 12:59pm · Like · 8

Nina Rachele Are we discussing the way in which we study Thomas, or the fact that we study Aristotle alongside Thomas? (And for certain subjects like logic, natural science, ethics, before him?) why on earth am i even typing this, i have no idea. Need to take up knitting again...
August 19 at 1:04pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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...
August 19 at 3:22pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It begins in an entirely different way. It begins with logic and philosophy and things which can be known by reasons. 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. 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. 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.
August 19 at 3:24pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 19 at 3:28pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick And Scripture. . . But maybe that's to Protestant of a beginning?
August 19 at 3:38pm · Unlike · 1

John Ruplinger ubi est Peregrinus. Omnia argumenta eius deleta videntur. Certamen cum umbra. Laudandi qui umbras suas vicerunt. Thomas ne erubesceat 
August 19 at 3:49pm · Like

Michael Beitia really Scott? I had no idea
August 19 at 3:51pm · Like

Michael Beitia BINGO: you spelled my name right!
Give him a hand, folks, he can be taught
August 19 at 3:52pm · Unlike · 3

John Kunz ok. is it safe to understand mr p-bon, that you attended TAC? I only say that as I think it says something to that effect on your book of faces profile. now... the way that the program is built studies things in a historical narrative (more or less). however, it is an integrated historical narrative. the program does not study JUST logic, and THEN syllogism, and THEN philosophy (just listing what you wrote above - more or less), and THEN some natural theology a la greeks.
August 19 at 4:06pm · Like

Tom Sundaram Kunz - he's a Christendom guy, I think.
August 19 at 4:07pm · Like

John Kunz (still writing - just hit enter by mistake - in my humility, I just said that I made a mistake)
August 19 at 4:07pm · Like · 2

Tom Sundaram Also I love that P-B is apparently immune to sarcasm, as he completely missed Beitia's.
August 19 at 4:08pm · Like · 6

Becca Cupo I just adore this thread.
August 19 at 4:12pm · Like · 4

John Kunz 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.
August 19 at 4:28pm · Edited · Like · 5

Marina Shea Mr Peregrine, two questions. What is the ideal of a university as such? 2) is a Catholic university different in kind from a university simply?
August 19 at 4:43pm · Like

John Kunz You're welcome (show off)
August 19 at 4:58pm · Unlike · 2

John Hall http://youtu.be/BNyDjkPO8l0

Wha' Happen??
Hey, Wha Happen??
August 19 at 5:08pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger QUAESTIONEM unam propono: BOVEM MUTUM hanc lineam commendare arbitraminine?
August 19 at 5:54pm · Like

Isak Benedict You know, one of the first lessons I teach any students learning history with me is to avoid the mistake of assuming that at any given historical period people all thought the same thing. Being quick to judge, and naturally tending toward it, young students like very much to say things like "Well that's just what they all thought back then." Jonathan Scott Weinberg, or the so-called Bonaventure, appears from his profile picture to be substantially older than high school or middle school students. But that don't seem to matter.

Mr. Weinberg, even if your tenuous claim that TAC purports to approach sacred theology in some specific unprecedented way holds any water whatsoever, it does not follow that therefore all graduates of TAC also approach it that way, or that we all emerge inevitably brainwashed by the college's approach.

In other words, Bonaventure - I'm trying very hard to see things from your point of view, I really am. Unfortunately, I can't stick my head that far up my own ass. Maybe you can teach me how to do that, too?
August 19 at 7:06pm · Like · 2

John Kunz John - just because you aren't getting many responses to your Latin statements doesn't mean that we don't understand them...
August 19 at 7:52pm · Unlike · 3

Tom Sundaram Excuse me? Have we met? How the hell can you justify calling all of us arrogant? I expect it from PB, because he's a troll and we've been over and over this twenty times, and I didn't read your Latin because it struck me as pretentious (and as a canonist in training, it's not because I don't read Latin) - who the hell are you to be so bigoted toward everyone here?
August 19 at 7:53pm · Unlike · 4

John Kunz 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.
August 19 at 7:54pm · Like · 1

Tom Sundaram Also, I don't think I studied Theology wrong, and I'm willing to bet my MA in Philosophy and my MA in Theology on that. Are you going to tell me where I screwed up? Because if you want to tell me the failures in my own education, you'd best be damn well ready to back it up with chapter and verse. Failing to do this means you are guilty of calumny.

Take your time, rear yourself up like a man and make your case - I know the documents of the Church well enough that I am untroubled by any ideas you might have gotten into your head.
August 19 at 7:59pm · Like · 3

Isak Benedict 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?
August 19 at 8:01pm · Like

Isak Benedict Tom - I think it might be a good idea for Ruplinger to learn how to punctuate and capitalize before he tackles your theology education.
August 19 at 8:04pm · Like

Tom Sundaram 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.
August 19 at 8:04pm · Edited · Like

Isak Benedict He's not off to a very good start.
August 19 at 8:06pm · Like · 1

Tom Sundaram 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.
August 19 at 8:06pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson http://www.youtube.com/embed/PB6sH3RwGYA?autoplay=1

The Great Muppet Caper, Say cheese!
The end of the song "Happiness Hotel" from The Great Muppet Caper. Gonzo takes a picture and Sam the Eagle says his best line ever.
August 19 at 8:06pm · Like · 5

Isak Benedict Tom - I think he intends it to mean "unbearable."
August 19 at 8:07pm · Like · 1

Tom Sundaram Dude, that's like...one letter too long and way too many letters different. How do you get from A to B on that one? 
August 19 at 8:08pm · Like

Isak Benedict Matthew - granted. Quite granted. Doesn't mean some people around here don't need an expert surgeon in head-from-ass removal.
August 19 at 8:09pm · Like

Isak Benedict He means we are unbearable to be around or converse with, just as muddy, stagnant water is impotable. That's my best guess.
August 19 at 8:10pm · Like

Isak Benedict In other words, he can't stomach us.
August 19 at 8:12pm · Like

Tom Sundaram Anyways, I assume that his criticism that our "tone" indicates that we don't get Theology right is because we have a sense of poise and dignity about our education, rather than treating our degrees as worthless pieces of paper that can be used as Latin-themed toilet rags in emergencies. I suppose, given the kind of paradigm that thinks being anything but passive on the matter is the Devil's work, he would rather we spent all our time talking about social issues and never discussing Aquinas. We would all be perfect souls of courtesy. You know, like St. Jerome "the Thunderer."

"As to your inquiry whether I have written in opposition to the books of Annianus, this pretended deacon of Celedæ, who is amply provided for in order that he may furnish frivolous accounts of the blasphemies of others, know that I received these books...I have suffered so much...that I almost thought of passing over these writings with silent contempt. For he flounders from beginning to end in the same mud, and, with the exception of some jingling phrases which are not original, says nothing he had not said before. Nevertheless, I have gained much in the fact, that in attempting to answer my letter he has declared his opinions with less reserve, and has published to all men his blasphemies; for every error which he disowned in the wretched synod of Diospolis he in this treatise openly avows. It is indeed no great thing to answer his superlatively silly puerilities, but if the Lord spare me, and I have a sufficient staff of amanuenses, I will in a few brief lucubrations answer him, not to refute a defunct heresy, but to silence his ignorance and blasphemy by arguments: and this your Holiness could do better than I, as you would relieve me from the necessity of praising my own works in writing to the heretic."
August 19 at 8:16pm · Like · 3

Isak Benedict THE ST. JEROME SMACKDOWN!! OHHHHH SNAP
August 19 at 8:17pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger QED (BTW there is a potable arrogant bastard.) Anywho, I just read like hundreds of posts ripping on a certain Peregrinne B. but couldn't find a single post by him. Just trying to clarify. Regarding the theology, I take for a model both the Jesuit tradition and Leo XIII's suggested order of studies. Your own is considerably different. I also question how its done. That is all. Regarding superbia, it's just something I suspect in how open you are to criticism. I was being tongue in cheek mostly, but hey, what do I know. (edit: to be clear I refer to the Ratio Studiorum esp. as explained by Fr. Hughes)
August 19 at 8:24pm · Edited · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson I think there's plenty of cheek to go around in these parts...
August 19 at 8:23pm · Edited · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson The real question is: is this comment thread a sin I must confess as soon as I am able?
August 19 at 8:24pm · Like · 7

Matthew J. Peterson But all I did was point to the one interlectual thing I like about my alma mater...
August 19 at 8:25pm · Like · 3

Aaron Gigliotti Matthew, this comment thread is building you mansions in Heaven.
August 19 at 8:25pm · Like · 5

Isak Benedict And if you die tomorrow and become a saint, will this thread stand as some kind of fourth-class digital relic of you, Matthew?
August 19 at 8:26pm · Like · 3

Tom Sundaram I am a great fan of the potable Arrogant Bastard. I am also a fan of the classical order of studies - I especially like how Leo got it from Aquinas, and how ours doesn't begin with Metaphysics and end in the Scriptures, such that all of it is accepted purely based on "my teacher told me so." I am open to criticism, believe it or not - I am not so open to these usual Ex Corde Ecclesiae school genital-waving contests which seem to be everyone's favorite occupation.

Since I presume your accusations are not actually based in reality or knowing me at all, I'm just going to assume you won't defend them, in which case I hope you are willing to offer an apology. I don't take kindly to "I'm just gonna be an uncontrolled flapping mouth at your school, since, you know, if it's on the internet nobody can tell me what is rude." I believe that my school deserves an apology when people say ignorant stuff about it.
August 19 at 8:26pm · Like · 4

Aaron Gigliotti "Creator of five day long comment threads . . . Pray for us."
August 19 at 8:27pm · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Ruplinger and Bonaventure both seem to hold degrees from the same school of evasion, Tom. I don't think an apology is forthcoming.
August 19 at 8:28pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley Tom, you should quote Jerome in Latin, otherwise the relevant parties might not understand it.
August 19 at 8:28pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley If Mr. Bonaventure is really Mr. Weinberg, I believe he was asked to leave TAC by Mr. Kaiser at some point in his freshman year. (Or at least, Scott Weinberg related some such anecdote to me back in the day.)
August 19 at 8:29pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Ruplinger has no idea what hurricane he has just provoked.
August 19 at 8:32pm · Like

Edward Langley Facebook's privacy settings can do that to conversations. Especially if the person in question has blocked you at some point: then neither you nor he will be able to see each other's comments.
August 19 at 8:35pm · Like · 3

Isak Benedict "...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?
August 19 at 8:35pm · Like

Edward Langley The short story is that someone showed up awhile ago and started criticizing TAC's curriculum and evading any attempt to reach common ground. Since then, many of us have, rightly or wrongly. decided that argument with this person is fruitless and have begun responding in kind.
August 19 at 8:37pm · Like · 3

John Ashman I pray for their job prosoects.
August 19 at 8:37pm · Like

Edward Langley I think very few TACers would claim that TAC's curriculum is perfect for every possible end, (in fact, I gather that several people in this thread are quite critical of TAC most of the time) we just like criticism to come from someone who is willing to actually talk to us rather than at us.
August 19 at 8:39pm · Like · 3

Isak Benedict I'd never say I'm not arrogant. I reject the idea that I'm somehow arrogant because I attended Thomas Aquinas College.
August 19 at 8:42pm · Like · 3

Isak Benedict Perhaps you were not deliberately provocative in that other conversation.
August 19 at 8:43pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Also - 524.
August 19 at 8:45pm · Unlike · 2

Edward Langley .525x10^3
August 19 at 8:45pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley I think that is a problem, although there is a corresponding problem with lectures: excessive passivity to the ideas of others.
August 19 at 8:47pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Quite.
August 19 at 8:48pm · Like

Edward Langley 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.
August 19 at 8:52pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Can't hear you with your mouth full like that, John
August 19 at 8:52pm · Edited · Like

Edward Langley I'll take a good Stone Brewing Company IPA, if you please.
August 19 at 8:53pm · Edited · Like

Isak Benedict Pistols at dawn, Ruplinger. Your day has come.
August 19 at 8:59pm · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 19 at 9:01pm · Like

Edward Langley Hey, Peregrine, we read the dude that invented that phrase, we'll all about it.
August 19 at 9:01pm · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Put a sock in it, Bonaventure.
August 19 at 9:02pm · Like

Edward Langley In fact, Dr. MacArthur and co. basically never stopped repeating that phrase.
August 19 at 9:02pm · Edited · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Thanks, I love you guys.
August 19 at 9:02pm · Like

Marie Pitt-Payne FYI John - this is the type of comment that you cannot see which these gentlemen were responding to: 

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 15 at 8:29am 

There are plenty more where that came from.
August 19 at 9:04pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBPy4tvlCwc

You Displease Me
You displease me greatly and I ignore the both of you.
August 19 at 9:07pm · Like

Tom Sundaram It's real great that just for going to a serious Catholic school, I get to have a HEADMASTER OF A CATHOLIC SCHOOL CALL EVERYONE LIKE ME ARROGANT IN PUBLIC. I'm sure Trinity, Ambrose, and JPII all are real proud of you, John. You really do them proud when you insult people on Facebook for no reason. It's a real credit to the education.

JUST KIDDING HA HA HA IT'S JUST A JOKE, TONGUE IN CHEEK YOU GUYS
August 19 at 9:15pm · Unlike · 4

Isak Benedict This guy is the headmaster of a school? I'm shocked, shocked.
August 19 at 9:17pm · Like

Edward Langley Tom, I don't think that's necessary: John seemed to have missed the context of our snips at Peregrine.
August 19 at 9:25pm · Edited · Like · 1

Tom Sundaram 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.
August 19 at 9:28pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Ed - he admitted himself he was being "merely provocative."
August 19 at 9:29pm · Like

Tom Sundaram 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."
August 19 at 9:30pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson http://vimeo.com/m/37683622

Rainy Day Women No. 12 & 35
Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re trying to be so good They’ll stone ya just a-like they said they would They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to go home Then…
August 19 at 9:40pm · Edited · Like · 5

Max Summe I appreciate that this thread gets a soundtrack from time to time....
August 19 at 9:43pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia Heated discussion? ha. this is all twaddle. Scottegrine Bonaweinberg sets up a straw man, beats a drum and the TAC interblagactivists get all up in a tizzy. Its laughable, stupid and pointless. 
I prod I prod I prod because it entertains. I need not justify my basic education to anyone, least of all a pseudonymous troll. 
In the words of Bender Bending Rodriguez: Bite my shiny metal ass
August 19 at 9:44pm · Like · 2

Max Summe Futurama references are always appropriate at all times.
August 19 at 9:45pm · Unlike · 4

Michael Beitia ^do you have magisterial evidence?^
August 19 at 9:46pm · Unlike · 5

Edward Langley "Si aliqui audet dicere quod referentia ad futuramam sint aliquando non conveniens, anathema sit" -- (Council of Liberfaciei, 2008, canon xviii)
August 19 at 9:53pm · Edited · Like · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick And I thought that his couldn't escalate anymore than it already had. . . (By the way discussion is a great way to find out you're wrong too! Throwing out thoughts at 17 other individuals who all read the same things doesn't make everyone agree! We don't just nod and continue on our way.  I think I learned a lot of humility through Socratic dialogue. Entering a class being absolutely certain and leaving it being dazed and confused and seeking more answers isn't easy!)
August 19 at 10:10pm · Unlike · 2

Edward Langley I think we should periodically resurrect this thread, just because.
August 19 at 10:12pm · Like

Michael Beitia the next perfect number is 8128.... good luck
August 19 at 10:14pm · Unlike · 3

Shannon Maguire 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.
August 19 at 10:28pm · Unlike · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure There is no strawman. The claim is well-founded. TAC does not teach students the kind of theology which leads from an assent to sacred truths and leads to understanding. TAC does not stand on this. TAC stands on something else. It stands on theology which proceeds from reason, a natural theology; albeit a natural theology which may strive to be consistent with the Faith but is, nonetheless, not supportive of sacred theology which helps develop a spirit of intellectual assent, but a flawed reasoning in relation to Faith.
August 19 at 10:40pm · Like

Edward Langley You keep talking, but you don't seem to understand what you say.
August 19 at 10:41pm · Like · 5

Edward Langley 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?
August 19 at 10:47pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward Langley, what kind of response is that? This seems to be no response, but an admission. I would rather understand the benefit of what TAC does in its curriculum, for what it is. But since you ask, I would underscore, at the start, the first principles of sacred theology, the principles of the Catholic Faith, those sacred truths we hold by faith, promulgated by the Church. Then I would teach the doctors of the Church, those theologians whose works help lead the soul towards a deeper understanding of those truths. THEN, I would teach natural theology, metaphysics, logic, Aristotle and St. Thomas. I would not teach Freud, Jung, Elliot, etc. Etc. At the expense of sacred theology. We have an obligation to teach the Faith.
August 19 at 11:03pm · Like

Edward Langley Ok, be specific: would Freshman theology involve reading the Bible? what additional texts would you add? The Catechism? Dei Verbum?

If you really want a defense of TAC's curriculum, a communication of your view of a good curriculum might help us see what common ground there is to start from.
August 19 at 11:05pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley Are you saying that freshman year would not involve studying anything besides theology?
August 19 at 11:06pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure BUT, TAC is not proposing to present a renewed emphasis on sacred theology. It is just proposing to restore Western academia, through a renewed emphasis on Western thinkers who have contributed to the body of wisdom that falls within a natural theology or metaphysics. Can this sustain itself and make cultural inroads. I think now. Not without a renewed emphasis on sacred theology.
August 19 at 11:10pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No, obviously, I am not suggesting that freshman year include only theology. But there does need to be a distinction between sacred and natural theology. Catholic students need to be taught the sacred principles of their Faith and shown the examples of the doctor theologians who demonstrate the reasonability of the Faith, lest St. Thomas appear to be nothing more than a medieval metaphysician reasoning his way to Faith.
August 19 at 11:16pm · Like

Edward Langley I think what the founders of TAC thought was that a strong foundation in logic and philosophy would help students of theology see the line dividing Faith and reason. Furthermore, it would help theologians begin to understand the faith (remember, "fides quaerens intellectum") by giving them places from which they can both defend the articles of the Faith against objections and show the harmony of the deposit of faith with the truths discoverable by natural reason.
August 19 at 11:18pm · Like · 7

Edward Langley 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.
August 19 at 11:20pm · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Catechesis is something entirely different. Though the simplest catechesis should be consistent with the most elegant sacred theology. I think TAC overestimates the importance of the Great Books, and underestimates the importance of the Catholic Church in education and academia. TAC should be intelligent enough to not have to cleave to the Great Books model. It should be smart enough to be more original and self-sufficient. The Great Books model robs time and collapses sacred theology. It also robs the Catholic student.
August 19 at 11:28pm · Like

Edward Langley Mr. Berquist explicitly denied that TAC was a great books school.
August 19 at 11:29pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Also Edward, the articles of Faith are broader than St. Thomas articulates. If you are limited to the Great Books, then you are limited to the Summa, but the Catholic Faith is bigger than this and cannot be limited by the context of the Great Books. This is really absurd if you think about it. The founders should have thought of this. No one pointed a gun at their head and forced them to embrace the Great Books model to that extent, like they do a St. John's.
August 19 at 11:32pm · Like

Edward Langley 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.
August 19 at 11:33pm · Like · 4

Edward Langley I've never implied that the articles of Faith were all contained by St. Thomas: after all some of them (such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) were only recognized as such long after St. Thomas died.
August 19 at 11:35pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Well, it is a Great Books school. It says it is, and it reads James. It is what it is. If it is not a Great Books school, it does not teach sacred theology either. It has not improved theology. It has just picked fights. It helps people reason, but it picks fights. It does not enable reason to be perfected by Faith, because it does not present sacred theology.
August 19 at 11:37pm · Like

Edward Langley "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?
August 19 at 11:38pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley "Well, it is a Great Books school. It says it is, and it reads James. It is what it is. If it is not a Great Books school, it does not teach sacred theology either."

Mr. Berquist is on record denying that TAC is a great books school.
August 19 at 11:38pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Well, the Immaculate Conception is eminently reasonable and wonderful for the Catholic student to discuss reasonably. It is reasonable and wonderful to seek a greater understanding of the Immaculate Conception through a theological inquiry. And if St. Thomas were alive today, this is what he would be doing.
August 19 at 11:43pm · Like

Edward Langley Sure, but should neophytes begin by studying the Immaculate Conception?
August 19 at 11:45pm · Like · 4

Edward Langley Should theology be taught by telling the students: "Go study whichever article of Faith happens to pique your interest?"
August 19 at 11:45pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Dude, Edward, why?

Perescott is just a beating drum
August 19 at 11:46pm · Unlike · 5

Edward Langley I'm a glutton for punishment sometimes. Also, I'm trying to distract myself from writing a master's thesis.
August 19 at 11:48pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Mr. Berquist can deny all he likes. Denial is not having copies of all the Great Books in the bookstore. This denial does not stand up against the fact that the curriculum presents the Great Books to the students, from Freud to James. Is the reason he denies this that its students read and discuss the great books? I'm not going to argue with Dr. Berquist. I think what he meant was the college places these books in order, with Thomas being seen as pre-eminent, which is what Great Books colleges do not do. But if the students do not learn theology, then what is the point of studying Thomas?
August 19 at 11:49pm · Like

Edward Langley To prepare them to study theology, perhaps?
August 19 at 11:50pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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. The only response you have is either to wage ridiculous and juvenile attacks, or to try to misrepresent the argument. Please let me know when you are able to discuss this in a serious manner. Thank you and good night.
August 19 at 11:54pm · Like

Edward Langley I'm still curious what "studying theology" would look like. Presumably, it doesn't match what I did while reading St. Thomas on the Trinity and the Sacraments in class.
August 19 at 11:55pm · Like · 3

Edward Langley How should I go about studying the Trinity? Read the relevant encyclicals and council documents?
August 19 at 11:56pm · Like · 1

Marie Pitt-Payne Mr. Berquist. (Marcus) Not Dr. Berquist.
August 20 at 12:00am · Like · 2

Edward Langley "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.
August 20 at 12:02am · Like · 4

Edward Langley And, as far as I can see, most of the misrepresentation in this thread is on your side: I have made very few statements of fact.
August 20 at 12:02am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward, what question of your's have a neglected to answer? 

If the goal of TAC is "to prepare students to study theology" then why does it not help students develop a theological habit of mind? Why does it spend years studying geometry and music? Is this beautiful? Does geometry and music and Marx and Hegel prepare one to gain a deeper understanding of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Trinity?
August 20 at 12:13am · Like

Edward Langley Take my most recent question: If I were to study the Trinity, how should I go about it?
August 20 at 12:15am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure What have I misrepresented, Edward? Please defend your claim that I have misrepresented something. Thanks in advance.
August 20 at 12:16am · Like

Edward Langley If the goal of TAC is "to prepare students to study theology" then why does it not help students develop a theological habit of mind? Why does it spend years studying geometry and music? Is this beautiful? Does geometry and music and Marx and Hegel prepare one to gain a deeper understanding of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Trinity?

1) "Why does it not help students develop a theological habit of mind?"

- Describe the "theological habit of mind"

2) "Why does it spend years studying geometry and music?"

- Because the study of geometry sharpens the logical abilities of the mind and music disposes one's passions, helping to develop the virtues necessary to fruitfully pursue the study of theology.

3) "Is this beautiful?"

- Not sure what the question is.

4) "Does geometry and music and Marx and Hegel prepare one to gain a deeper understanding of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Trinity?" (I'm not sure what "the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Trinity" is :))

- see (2): Marx and Hegel promote errors which help us understand the philosophical concepts that Sacred Theology uses better.
August 20 at 12:20am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau 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?
August 20 at 12:24am · Unlike · 4

Edward Langley "What have I misrepresented, Edward?"

Tell me if you understood the intent of this exchange correctly:

"Peregrine Bonaventure It's telling that TAC is unable to admit that theology proceeds from assent to divinely revealed truths, not from reason, Aristotle or Euclid or valid syllogism. That must be because you want to be seen as the smartest people on the planet. Sounds a little insecure to me,
August 18 at 5:05pm · Like

Edward Langley Have you even read question one of the prima pars? If you did, you wouldn't make such a completely idiotic statement.
August 18 at 5:21pm · Like · 8

Edward Langley Because TAC generally promotes Aquinas's understanding of the relation between fatih and reason.

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 18 at 5:35pm · Like"

Did I ever say that "the first part of the Summa is the source or set of the principle data of sacred theology."? No, I responded to your claim that "TAC is unable to admit that theology proceeds from assent to divinely revealed truths" by pointing out that St. Thomas (and, consequently, TAC) promotes a very different view of theology at the very heart of what TAC promotes as a good guide to the study of theology.
August 20 at 12:25am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau 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.
August 20 at 12:26am · Unlike · 8

Peregrine Bonaventure If you were to go about studying the Holy Trinity, you would set aside your Euclid and Homer. You would put down your copy of TS Elliot and Henry James that you have purchased from the Great Books bookstore at TAC. You would trade in your copy of Freud, and Jung. And you would hire a Catholic theologian who has studied the Holy Trinity. You would not hire an unemployable alum. You would hire a real, reputable theologian who has studied in the Church. In place of a bit of Homer and Euclid and Joyce and Spencer, you would study what the Church has taught on the Holy trinity and the exegesis of this doctrine. You would also allow the students to see how all of the doctors of the Church have contributed to understanding this sacred mystery. You would make clear how this doctrine is reasonable, but one which cannot be reasoned to. In another section of the curriculum, which would fall under the name of philosophy, you would study logic, physivs and issues relating to the human soul.
August 20 at 12:26am · Like

John Kunz Hahahaha ok. I'm actually now sorry that I spent a bit of time writing an actual response to one of these question when the above is written. As Shakespeare might have said, "thyself upon thyself".
August 20 at 12:28am · Like · 3

John Kunz 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.
August 20 at 12:28am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau We could have a better discussion if we just addressed one another. Not out of arrogance but out of wisdom.
August 20 at 12:29am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward, what have I misrepresented? Your post below does not immediately reveal how I have misrepresented anything.

Jody, your comment is ridiculous. It only underscores how TAC alum are unable to articulate how TAC supports a genuine Catholic theological inquiry.
August 20 at 12:30am · Like

John Kunz 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...
August 20 at 12:31am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward, what have I misrepresented?
August 20 at 12:31am · Like

Edward Langley I'll give you a hint, look at Joe Zepeda's interpretation of the events:

"Joe Zepeda 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."
August 20 at 12:31am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Jody, how is this inquiry an obsession? TAC's approach to Catholic theology clearly seems indefensible. If so, other than attacking me personally, how do you defend it?
August 20 at 12:33am · Like

Edward Langley 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?"
August 20 at 12:33am · Like · 4

John Herreid How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck graduated from TAC?
August 20 at 12:37am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward, in good faith, do not hint. Please tell me clearly why you claim that I have misrepresnted something.

In the quotation below, you seem to present someone's claim that my representation of TAC is wrong.

What is that representation and why is it wrong?

My claim is TAC does not present students with a curriculum that enables them to develop a theological habit of mind. TAC stands on natural theology, which is in the realm of human reason.

This claim is underscored by statements on this thread by TAC alum which support the idea that St. Thomas reasoned his way to the sacred principles of the Faith; namely, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity; and that reason sheds light on Faith.

These claim by TAC alum are misrepresentations.

My statements are not misrepresentations.

TAC alum simply circle the wagons and attack. It is shameless and sad.
August 20 at 12:41am · Like

Edward Langley 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.
August 20 at 12:48am · Like · 5

Edward Langley i.e. if some TACers think the Trinity is demonstrable, they didn't get that idea from TAC.
August 20 at 12:49am · Like · 7

Edward Langley TAC definitely teaches and emphasizes natural theology, BTW, but I've never heard anyone suggest that natural theology is complete.
August 20 at 12:50am · Like · 4

John Kunz The wagons may be circled. But that's just Darwinian.
August 20 at 1:00am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure John, your statement is that of a fool.

Edward, again, what have I misrepresented? TAC does not present the Church's teaching on sacred theology. It presents St. Thomas' teaching on the Church's teaching on sacred theology, in a manner which may be accepted or rejected by the students, depending on how he feels.

In addition, it does not employ this teaching as a principle in the instruction of sacred theology, but merely as a maxim.

In support of this statement, I point to the Great Books curriculum of TAC which afford more time and space for Freud and Euclid than it does for the doctors of the Church combined.

Your argument is flawed. To say that TAC instructs students according to the quotations which you cite, is the same thing as saying that TAC instructs according to the spiritual principles of Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin. (It does this, by the way. I would refer you to statements of TAC tutors Quakenbush and Ferrier in previous threads.)
August 20 at 1:15am · Like

Edward Langley "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.
August 20 at 1:17am · Like · 4

Edward Langley We also read St. Augustine, St. Athanasius and St. John Damascene, all of whom are either Fathers or doctors of the Church: in fact, we probably spend more hours in and out of class reading St. Augustine than almost anyone else in the program.
August 20 at 1:19am · Like · 3

Edward Langley "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.
August 20 at 1:20am · Like · 3

Edward Langley Also, when the Church gives instructions on how to study Theology, it has often said "Study St. Thomas". Perhaps more recent popes have been less explicit in this matter, but it can hardly be said that promoting Aquinas's understanding of theology is not acting in accord with the Church's wishes on the matter. Or else, if it is, perhaps you should talk to the Dominicans about how they form their novices.
August 20 at 1:22am · Like · 2

Edward Langley And, I'm not sure how one could read St. Augustine and think that Sacred Theology is equivalent to natural theology.
August 20 at 1:25am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward, a tutor emphasising the necessity of Faith in senior year doesn't cut it. That's a very sweet sentiment, but I would not say that constitutes a credible approach to theology. Yes, it's good that you read a few of other Doctors and theologians of the Church, in addition to Saint Thomas. But any graduate of TAC is free to reject the Faith or reject the principles of sacred theology. They may not admit it, but they do not adhere to them. This is hardly conducive to promoting Catholic culture. Thank you.
August 20 at 1:28am · Like

Edward Langley How do you propose to teach the Faith in a way that the student absolutely cannot reject?
August 20 at 1:29am · Like

John Kunz It's not one of a fool.
August 20 at 1:29am · Like

John Kunz Oh - and if you read the loooooong response I wrote earlier today, it addressed most of your concerns, but you haven't responded.
August 20 at 1:30am · Unlike · 2

Edward Langley Yeah, go read that response and then tell me that TACers don't try to reason with you.
August 20 at 1:38am · Like · 1

Edward Langley It's kinda funny, when you say things like "That's a very sweet sentiment, but I would not say that constitutes a credible approach to theology. Yes, it's good that you read a few of other Doctors and theologians of the Church, in addition to Saint Thomas. But any graduate of TAC is free to reject the Faith or reject the principles of sacred theology." my study of St. Augustine causes little "Pelagian" alarm bells to start ringing.

Do you really think that any human institution or even the Church could propose the Faith to someone in sucha way that they were no longer free to reject the Faith? Sure, if God gave them the gift of Faith, they will receive and profit from instruction; but without that gift, all instruction here below is fruitless.
August 20 at 1:42am · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure A lot of people read St. Augustine as a medieval, romantic thinker, and not as a Doctor of the Church. Reading St. Augustine, and reading Freud in the same curriculum, without a properly trained teacher, does not constitute a Catholic theology.
August 20 at 1:45am · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 20 at 1:46am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure No, Edward, we are not really free to reject the principles of our Faith. We are even less free to reject them to the extent that we are reasonable. We may only reject the principles of Faith out of ignorance or sin. So we must not approach Catholic education this way. Freedom to reject the Faith is not a principle of Catholic education at any level, and even less at a Catholic college. If this is a principle of TAC -- if this is what TAC means by liberal -- then the place is worse than I imagined.
August 20 at 1:49am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Hint Edward (if you want to speed this up): PB (or SW) doesn't believe that the Socratic method is at all appropriate for the study of Theology because it implies that the student can wrestle with ideas or even discuss how something might be reasonable. Students are the be taught systematically using doctrinal sources only. No interpretation is permitted. (ok, go back to your argument)
August 20 at 1:57am · Unlike · 4

Edward Langley 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.
August 20 at 2:04am · Like · 2

Jason Van Boom Peregrine Bonaventure Does Jody Haaf Garneau accurately summarise your position on teaching sacred theology?
August 20 at 2:06am · Like · 3

Edward Langley 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

Peregrine Bonaventure No, Jason, she does not, and thank you. I do embrace the Socratic method. I do not reject it. But Socrates was not informed by Faith. However, the method is useful. The dialectical method of Aristotle, as laid out in his Topics, is also useful for sacred theology. What matters is the heart. If the heart of the believer adheres, or cleaves, to those principles of faith which we hold dear. To the non-believer, we can never put forward these principles in a way which is irresistable. Only grace can do that. We can even die out of love for the non-believer, who still does not believe. But this does not mean that we should change our tradition of teaching, to suit the non-believer. We must use the conventions which are at our disposal to understand our Faith. But we must never abandon those conventions just because someone does not believe. Their lack of belief is not the fault of reason, either theirs or ours.
August 20 at 2:16am · Like

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.
August 20 at 2:16am · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger can u name a dialogue in which 2 youths are the main interlocutors?
August 20 at 2:23am · Like

Daniel Lendman 619 and still amusing.
August 20 at 8:45am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Edward Langley: Really? when I studied St. Thomas, we just called him "Thomas" and was instructed by the tutor to think of it as a mental exercise, like Euclid. 
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
August 20 at 9:01am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia 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.
August 20 at 9:20am · Like · 4

John Ruplinger interesting mb. Most schools study no liberal arts. And one i know of that does produces courteous well born gentleman 
August 20 at 9:26am · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia 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
August 20 at 9:29am · Edited · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Crazy like pineapples
August 20 at 9:30am · Like · 2

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

www.expolugha.tn
www.expolugha.tn
August 20 at 9:37am · Like · 1

Chris Bissex It's becoming intimidating to comment on this thread, lest one accidentally make a comment that has already been made...
August 20 at 9:41am · Unlike · 6

Michael Beitia it hasn't stopped anyone else. Plus, this thread is just a rehash of about ten others of the same stripe.
August 20 at 9:43am · Like · 3

John Ruplinger i apologize for being obtuse. My questions above have two points: what is called Socratic dialogue upon inspection is not and such dialogues are often only for the benefit of the silent youths listening (or reader). Secondly there were methods of learning that are now extinct as far as i know.
August 20 at 9:56am · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Like a rabbit running around a tree, Bethea demonstrates repeatedly how difficult it can be for TAC alum to think clearly about theology. The trivium and the quadrivium are not tools by which we reason toward sacred truths. Studying Music and Geometry do not help illumine Faith with the light of reason. This is completely backwards, and this is his assertion. You don't appear willing to address this in a serious manner.
August 20 at 10:03am · Like

Daniel Lendman I almost responded in earnest... Edward, you set a bad example.
August 20 at 10:09am · Unlike · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure TAC is a Great Books liberal arts college that presents theology in this way: you reason towards it. Many of its students may know that Faith requires assent, but the curriculum does not present theology in this way, nor in its fullness. It's portrayal of theology does not convey the Catholic Faith in its fullness. Hence, Faith does not perfect reason, in the intellectual formation of its students. As a result, its students have acquired intellectual hubris, and are unable to participate in a reasonable and mature discussion on this concern. They are in denial. I would refer anyone to the inane comments of TAC alum in this thread.
August 20 at 10:21am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick I'm amused at the people that come out of the wood work the longer this goes on. Also does anyone else get the feeling that we have Dr. McArthur and Mr. Berquist laughing at us right now, or more so laughing at what they've created? Didn't they both always say that they were creating Martyrs for the Church? Haha!
August 20 at 10:31am · Unlike · 3

Daniel Lendman 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."
August 20 at 10:40am · Like · 3

Edward Langley I suppose the medieval universities present Faith as somethign to be reasoned towards, anyways.
August 20 at 10:41am · Like

Edward Langley 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.
August 20 at 10:43am · Edited · Like · 5

Daniel Lendman I do forget that some people cannot see all the comments.
August 20 at 10:43am · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Yeah, but it would probably be more fruitful for you to work on your Thesis Ed 
August 20 at 10:45am · Like · 1

Anthony Crifasi If Dr. McArthur were here: "636 comments?!? This is all just mental..."
August 20 at 10:45am · Edited · Like · 7

Lauren Ogrodnick "Class dismissed! All of you go spend an hour in the chapel!"
August 20 at 10:46am · Like · 4

Edward Langley I want to get to a thousand ....
August 20 at 10:46am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia 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
August 20 at 10:49am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure You are all free to present your case to the world. No one is stopping you. But sadly, your only "argument" is that no one besides yourselves is able to understand you. You don't present an argument. You dodge and evade and attack and joke. The medieval university did not present sacred theology as something to be reasoned to. It presented metaphysics as something to be reasoned to. TAC does not support reasonable discussion on sacred truths. It does not present all of the sacred truths. It does not present discussion which begins with assent to Faith, because it presents the principles of logic prior to the principles of revelation. When it gets around to sacred theology, it does not present its students with the theological fullness of the deposit of the Faith. It may say it does in its Charter, but it does not in its curriculum.
August 20 at 10:50am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick "No seriously, at least an hour, some of you should probably stay in there for good and get in line for confession also."
August 20 at 10:51am · Like · 2

Edward Langley But, those medieval universities only began teaching theology after years of math, philosophy, music, etc . ..
August 20 at 10:52am · Like · 4

Michael Beitia da da da da da da da
August 20 at 10:52am · Like · 2

John Ruplinger 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.
August 20 at 10:55am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure That's not true, Edward. Theology was taught to university students in the Middle Ages at an age comparable to today's college freshman. School children began to learn the trivium and quadrivium from a fairly early age. They also studied their Faith. They did not have anything comparable to a Great Books curriculum. Life was short. Time was of the essence. Young students knew the principles and form of sacred theology from an early age. They did not have to waste time with moderns. The pagan philosophers they studied are not relatively comparable to the modern heretics you read in the TAC curriculum.
August 20 at 11:00am · Like

Michael Beitia da da da da
August 20 at 11:03am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick 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.
August 20 at 11:05am · Like · 1

John Ruplinger i simply asked a Socratic question: what is Socratic dialogue? If TAC doesnt know, who does? (Before responding please see my list of seeming aporeia producing questions above)
August 20 at 11:05am · Edited · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick 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 
August 20 at 11:07am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Sorry Ruplinger, I don't know what Socratic dialogue is. I do know trollish jackassery, bald assertion, and inability to pick up on sarcasm..... but that's my gnosis coming out again
August 20 at 11:10am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 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
August 20 at 11:15am · Edited · Like · 2

Isak Benedict This Peregrine moron reminds me of a much less funny, much less charismatic, and much less entertaining Ignatius J. Reilly. I don't even know where to begin, man. Some of your comments are the dumbest things I've ever read on the Internet. 

"TAC does not support reasonable discussion on sacred truths." That is a patently, observably crackpot claim. 

"But sadly, your only "argument" is that no one besides yourselves is able to understand you. You don't present an argument. You dodge and evade and attack and joke." Mr. Hercules Langley has done a fantastic job of attempting to clean the shit out of Bonaventure's stables on that count. You're really not going to find a more reasonable and kind interlocutor.
August 20 at 11:19am · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure The community of teachers and scholars during the early middle ages taught students sacred theology at a fairly early age. The liberal arts were also taught to teens. There is no real equivalent in the middle ages to the contemporary high school program. So to say that TAC follows the pattern of university from the high middle ages is like seeing an actor on an iPhone in an historical movie about the Roman gladiators. In the high middle ages, the monastic tradition provided students likely in their early 20s with solid teaching in sacred theology.
August 20 at 11:19am · Like

John Ruplinger my questions are serious, perhaps tinged somewhat ironic. Socrates was also thought a troll.
August 20 at 11:21am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia but much less repetitive than our own Scoregrine Bonaburgwienture
August 20 at 11:22am · Like · 1

Isak Benedict ^^^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?
August 20 at 11:22am · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick Again Mr. Ruplinger, he was referring to someone else.
August 20 at 11:22am · Like

Michael Beitia and dirt farmers farmed actual dirt
August 20 at 11:23am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Isak, your crude, hostile and vulgar comments simply underscore the lack of quality in your argument. TAC does not support reasonable discussion on Sacred theology, because its curriculum does not provide its students with the fullness of the deposit of the Faith. This is manifestly obvious in its curriculum. It provides students with the philosophical basis of a few doctrines. This is not theology. This is metaphysics.
August 20 at 11:26am · Like

Michael Beitia "^This isn't argument, it's just contradiction"^

"no it isn't"
August 20 at 11:27am · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 20 at 11:28am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Isak, the colorful prose that you have put on display brought this to mind:
I have always appreciated the diversity of minds that come to and graduate from TAC, so many different interests. That is one of the things that I really appreciate about a liberal education. No one is educated to be a master of any one discipline upon completion of a liberal education. Rather, he (hopefully) has mastered the ability to reason well. Consequently, many TAC grads go into diverse fields: Theology, Philosophy, Law, Education at all levels, Engineering, Architecture, Physics, the Medical Sciences, Performing Arts, Visual arts... the list goes on. Most importantly, TAC has fostered the religious and priestly vocations of 11% of its graduates. There is something about a liberal education that really enables the liberally minded man to excel wheresoever he feels called.
August 20 at 11:35am · Unlike · 3

Isak Benedict 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.
August 20 at 11:35am · Unlike · 1

John Ruplinger i only see the "more" reasonable half of the whirlwind. I cant imagine the mad raving ghastly dead horse that is the other side.
August 20 at 11:38am · Edited · Like · 4

Michael Beitia 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!
August 20 at 11:38am · Like · 4

Jason Van Boom John Ruplinger made the 666th comment. Does that bring good luck or bad?
August 20 at 11:39am · Like · 4

Isak Benedict 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.
August 20 at 11:40am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Haven't you read your "de Numerologiae"?
August 20 at 11:40am · Like · 2

Jason Van Boom I was never given the fullness of Sacred Theology. So, no.
August 20 at 11:41am · Like · 3

Jason Van Boom Here's the cover of the first appearance of Groot:

August 20 at 11:42am · Like · 3

Isak Benedict "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."
August 20 at 11:46am · Like

John Ruplinger is my observation off base: they accuse pg of not answering questions, ad hominems, bad arguments, no arguments, etc. PG has won: he has successfully turned his interlocutors into himself.
August 20 at 11:49am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia 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 
August 20 at 11:53am · Like

Jason Van Boom This thread has grown too long to be a medium of reasonable discussion. Which is why I post ridiculous things.
August 20 at 11:54am · Unlike · 4

Michael Beitia That's a terrible strategy, Van Boom. I only post deadly serious, insightful commentary with the full authority of tradition, and magisterial teachings
August 20 at 11:55am · Unlike · 6

John Ruplinger THEN STOP. feeding him, mb. It is grossly unkind. Pray for him instead. You are encouraging his unmitigatable ire. Besides he has a point he cannot articulate in his blind fury. Argue for him instead. Take his side: thus u could outmedieval him and calm his rage.
August 20 at 12:00pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 20 at 12:03pm · Like

Michael Beitia The long history of weirdness with this guy precludes that method, John. I don't defend TAC as a matter of course, nor do I think it is perfect. And frankly I don't know anyone else on this thread personally until you get back to Kunz. (Peterson excepted) so I just aim to entertain
August 20 at 12:03pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia ...myself
August 20 at 12:04pm · Like · 3

John Ruplinger prayer is precluded at TAC? That is a good start mb.  I believe pg accused tac of being noncatholic too
August 20 at 12:08pm · Like

JA Escalante might "Peregrine Bonaventure" be an account run by Matthew to troll the TAC alumni? PERFORMANCE ART?
August 20 at 12:12pm · Unlike · 14

John Ruplinger mb, let me ask. Is it the common aim of the liberal arts at tac to merely amuse oneself? while imperiling the souls of trolls. Is that what it is for? Is this Pieper's leisure? Kyrie eleison.
August 20 at 12:17pm · Like

Michael Beitia Escalante! At last a familiar face!
August 20 at 12:17pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante I think my theory has something to it
August 20 at 12:18pm · Unlike · 2

Michael Beitia John, I'm no Callicles for you questioning. I don't play the "let me ask you something" game
August 20 at 12:19pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Still at it? And this my friends is why there will be no online version of the TAC program any time soon.  Facebook = THE worst way to have a discussion (especially with multiple participants)
August 20 at 12:25pm · Unlike · 3

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 20 at 12:28pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger DO NOT IGNORE THE TROLL. Beat him pound him smash him. But to my questions, not one response and only one acknowledgement. Am i wrong to be skeptical of the boasts of TAC? It is slightly offputting. Color me disappointed.
August 20 at 12:34pm · Edited · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Do you mean your question about the classroom method John?
August 20 at 12:34pm · Like

Michael Beitia I suppose, and I can't speak for anyone here, that your question seems wildly tangential to the "is TAC bad at what it claims to do" thread. Personally, I think "Socratic method" is a bad way of describing the typical TAC classroom
August 20 at 12:37pm · Unlike · 4

Jody Haaf Garneau 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.
August 20 at 12:37pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia ^You take the high road^

Some of us slog through the mud
August 20 at 12:38pm · Like

Michael Beitia John, let me ask you a question:
What are the boasts of TAC?
August 20 at 12:42pm · Like · 1

Jason Van Boom John Ruplinger It's such a long thread, I don't know what you assert, question, or wonder about.
August 20 at 12:47pm · Unlike · 5

John Ruplinger 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.
August 20 at 12:49pm · Like

Jason Van Boom >> I raised both criticisms and alternatives.<<

How can one respond to them if he can't find them? Or easily read the context?

That's why I say this thread is TOO LONG.
August 20 at 12:50pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger i am sorry they are lost in the whirl of dead horse beatings.
August 20 at 12:51pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia And the TAC method is what again?
(edit: 700!)
August 20 at 12:52pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger the boasts mb are scattered on this thread but why should i respond when tempered serious questions are ignored?
August 20 at 12:54pm · Like

Jason Van Boom No, I'm being serious, for once.

John Ruplinger I
August 20 at 12:55pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia So is this "I won't respond because you won't"?
August 20 at 12:55pm · Like

Jason Van Boom d probably agree with much of what you say. I could give you serius and reasonable replies. But the thread is too long.
August 20 at 12:55pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Given that the troll is absent, I am willing to participate in a real discussion.
August 20 at 12:55pm · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia I was going to try to give you a serious response, but I think your question needs questioning
August 20 at 12:56pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau 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.
August 20 at 12:56pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau I believe John was also one who put forward that learning is more passive than active (but that might have been the Ignatian education person above -- no idea of name now). The root of his question was whether or not the method used at TAC was effective (or even legit)?
August 20 at 12:57pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau 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)
August 20 at 12:58pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia TAC isn't the socratic method. It is more like the "dumb ox" he described above except all the scattered opinions and objections are from different sides of the table, since none of us have the wherewithal to keep it all in one mind
August 20 at 12:58pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau 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.
August 20 at 12:59pm · Like

John Ruplinger NO ONE HAS RESPONDED TO ONE QUESTION (except mb). I wont say mb because if memory serves u didnt make them and i dont expect u to defend another's brag. To Jason i cannot write 700 words from a phone. My guess is it starts at post 616
August 20 at 1:00pm · Like

JA Escalante Qua! Qua! Qua!
August 20 at 1:00pm · Like · 5

Ben Limehouse ^ That's the mating call of the second semester TAC sophomore.
August 20 at 1:04pm · Unlike · 10

JA Escalante TAC is neither Socratic method nor Scholastic method. It is Buchanan/Adler method, for better or for worse.
August 20 at 1:07pm · Like · 2

Pater Edmund I think John Ruplinger raises some good questions. John Senior makes a similar point in his thinly veiled polemic against TAC in The Restoration of Christian Culture. Mr Berquist too, was ready to concede the faults of the seminar method, especially for theology (and indeed the theology tutorial when taught by Berquist or Neumayr was de facto a lecture). On the other hand, the seminar method is very good for certain things.
August 20 at 1:11pm · Like · 9

JA Escalante I do think it would be much better if TAC stopped claiming to be "Socratic" anything
August 20 at 1:13pm · Like · 2

Shannon Williams This ought to become a singles meet and greet forum, it'd be more fruitful.
August 20 at 1:14pm · Like · 5

Pater Edmund 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.
August 20 at 1:14pm · Like · 3

Pater Edmund (For both of the above see: http://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/.../charles-de-koninck.../)

Charles De Koninck, Jacob Klein, and Socratic Logocentrism
sancrucensis.wordpress.com
The bi-lingual Quebecois journal Laval théologique et philosophique, has recently uploaded its archives to the web. This was the organ of Laval School Thomism, and the early issues contain lots of ...
August 20 at 1:14pm · Like

Pater Edmund 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/)
August 20 at 1:16pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund That's the bell for vespers. I'm sure this thread will still be alive tomorrow, so till then.
August 20 at 1:17pm · Like · 3

Jody Haaf Garneau 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.
August 20 at 1:17pm · Like · 6

Jody Haaf Garneau JA -- why do you say that about dropping Socratic? (curious)
August 20 at 1:19pm · Like

JA Escalante 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
August 20 at 1:20pm · Edited · Like · 1

Jason Van Boom Unfollowing this thread. Good luck!
August 20 at 1:28pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia 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.
August 20 at 1:32pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia It was, fondly, a little like Meno
August 20 at 1:33pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger 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.
August 20 at 2:15pm · Like

Joel HF I always thought that a lot of the intra-TAC anguish about the program came from misleading advertising, as it were. People think that TAC proposes no positive teaching and that everything is left to students to discuss and decide for themselves, ala St. John's but with 4 years of "theology" tutorials. This was decidedly not my experience. At least not after the first two years.

The classroom method itself varies from tutor to tutor and it isn't really Socratic in any sense that Socrates (or even a law professor) would recognize.

Nor are the great books or the discussion methods the primary purpose of the school--at least not per Berquist or Neumayr. Some people bewailed this--too much Thomas, too much lecturing, not enough wonder. Personally, I was never much bothered by the fact that the school had an official (or quasi-official) doctrine.
August 20 at 2:31pm · Unlike · 9

Isak Benedict 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!
August 20 at 2:40pm · Like · 5

Jody Haaf Garneau For those who are actually still interested in the Socratic method, Mr Berquist left us this explanation: http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/a-libera.../why-socratic-method

Why the Discussion (Socratic) Method? | Thomas Aquinas College
www.thomasaquinas.edu
One of the distinguishing features of Thomas Aquinas College is its Discussion Method of teaching. Though the technique is as old as Socrates, it has never been in vogue. Nor is it today. The vast majority of colleges here and abroad use the lecture method. Yet what Socrates saw in it over 2,000 yea…
August 20 at 3:01pm · Like · 5

Michael Beitia Neumayr (Sorry pedantry)
August 20 at 3:07pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau And reading another Berquist lecture (Learning & Discipleship) he says this (which pertains to this fb discussion): "given the reputations of such lecturers {notorious dissenters and intellectual rogues}, those who attend might come expecting an intellectual brawl—them against us—and under such circumstances learning does not ordinarily take place. From disagreement, yes; from a brawl, less commonly." link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/.../Aquinas_Rev...
August 20 at 3:08pm · Edited · Like · 3

Jody Haaf Garneau Someone should compile a quotable Berquist page. It might not be as popular as a quotable Molly Gustin one but much more valuable.
August 20 at 3:09pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia ack! That was the first TAC lecture of my freshman year! That caused a veritable poo-storm among the stiff-necked and unruly student body
August 20 at 3:09pm · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau 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
August 20 at 3:10pm · Edited · Unlike · 6

Jody Haaf Garneau Classic rock
August 20 at 3:10pm · Like

Michael Beitia 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.
August 20 at 3:32pm · Like · 1

Joe Zepeda Margaret Grimm Blackwell this was a few hundred comments ago, but here is an online copy. https://drive.google.com/.../0B0_uLICa.../edit...
Zepeda_Joseph_Raphael Senior Thesis.pdf - Google Drive
docs.google.com
August 20 at 4:58pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele Shannon you are my favorite
August 20 at 5:27pm · Like · 1

Erik Bootsma For some reason I see this thread going on for so long and becoming so huge that eventually it will subsume all of the internets into itself. 

I think it may be the action of the world spirit coming to know itself.
August 20 at 5:50pm · Unlike · 5

Jonathan Monnereau Behold! The Leviathan!
August 20 at 6:01pm · Like · 4

John Ruplinger I appreciate the thoughts and consideration but i see little interest in discussion. I like TAC and all and am prone to hypercriticism. Several comments help me to understand better the situation. And hopefully the storm of post 666 is over.
August 20 at 6:05pm · Like

Sean Plus Anne Schniederjan Can someone summarize this
August 20 at 6:06pm · Like · 4

John Ruplinger A lengthy demonstration of the difference between discussion, debate, and thermonuclear troll warfare.
August 20 at 6:16pm · Like · 7

Michael Beitia well, according to the wiki, lighting a troll on fire is the preferred method...
August 20 at 6:34pm · Like · 2

Erik Bootsma Or turn them into stone by drawing them into an argument so long that the sun comes up?
August 20 at 6:35pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure It's really fun if you read this status in a superhero cartoon voice: 'TAC... No undergraduate institution in America requires more years of study of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. It's not even close."

Then just curse at anyone who asks how TAC teaches sacred theology.

That's ok. It's the TAC way.
August 20 at 6:59pm · Like

Michael Beitia go home Sceregritt Bonwienventureburg, you're drunk
August 20 at 7:05pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Bethea is a thug. A gangsta.
August 20 at 7:06pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia you misspelled "gangsta" too. you really need spell check
August 20 at 7:06pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I like Edward Langley's explanation the best. TAC does not study sacred theology, because the students are not ready. That's a fair claim.
August 20 at 7:07pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia hence the straw man
August 20 at 7:09pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Well, he doesn't really say that exactly, but he should. It would be ok if he did. He says TAC is the image of the medieval university at which sacred theology was not studied, therefore TAC does not study sacred theology. So that's compelling, isn't it? And it's not a Great Books school. Sounds like truly Catholic liberal education in crisis mode. You have met the enemy, and it is yourselves kind of thing.
August 20 at 7:13pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia more straw men. Are you a farmer? Did they make scarecrows up in Canada?
August 20 at 7:14pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure That's a very odd and repetetive response. If anyone wants to shed light on if and how TAC teaches sacred theology, that would be good. Till then, I am off this thread.
August 20 at 7:16pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia 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?
August 20 at 7:18pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No argument. Just the facts please.
August 20 at 7:35pm · Like

Michael Beitia Can't do it. My tolerance for smarmy, self-satisfied, obnoxious, assume-what-you-prove, douchebaggery is limited. 
Real discussion is impossible, because things get way twisted through his pathological neurosis regarding TAC. I don't need to convince him, waste of time, but caution against anyone taking him seriously. The notion that he "just wants to know" blew out the window many threads ago
August 20 at 8:06pm · Like · 3

Nina Rachele 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.
August 20 at 8:09pm · Unlike · 4

Peter Halpin You all need to do something else. 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7tgX_Uaqs

ANCHORMAN Brick Killed A Guy
hahahahahahahahahaha i dont own this. But this OWNS
August 20 at 8:16pm · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Wow, you seem pretty wound up, Bethea. Thanks for illuminating the Faith. 

So how does TAC teach sacred theology? Does it? Anyone?
August 20 at 8:28pm · Like

Michael Beitia I wasn't trying to illuminate the faith, o pseudonymous troll
August 20 at 9:34pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure C'mom B'thea. You can do it. I know you're a lot nicer than you sound on social media. Where does sacred theology begin? Does it begin with reason, wonder, speculation or none of the above? You can do it.
August 20 at 10:42pm · Edited · Like

Pater Edmund "An Exception to Godwin's Law: On the Absence of Reductio ad Hitlerum Arguments in Long and Rancorous Online Discussions of the Titles of Undergraduate Theses From Small Catholic Liberal Arts Colleges"
August 21 at 12:58am · Unlike · 9

Pater Edmund 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."
August 21 at 1:03am · Like · 9

Pater Edmund JA Escalante, I agree that the meaning of "Socratic" is being a bit streched in my comment above, but not more than "Socratic" is usually streched.
August 21 at 1:04am · Like · 3

JA Escalante oh so *I'm* a scoffer but Mr Gigliotti isnt. I see how it is, Pater
August 21 at 1:04am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund I do think Joel HF has a good point about how some of the SJC inspired promotional material that the college uses is slightly misleading.
August 21 at 1:05am · Unlike · 4

Pater Edmund 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>
August 21 at 1:10am · Edited · Like · 3

Pater Edmund But JA, were you thinking of something like Joel's point when you said TAC should avoid calling what it does in any way "Socratic," or did you have something else in mind?
August 21 at 1:12am · Like

JA Escalante 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.
August 21 at 1:15am · Edited · Like · 2

JA Escalante Basically, TAC classes and method are to Catholic wisdom what the State is to the Church on the Maritain model. Checkmate, Pater
August 21 at 1:17am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund But this is where I think my pet theory about the analogy of confused knowledge in philosophy and theology comes in.
August 21 at 1:18am · Like

JA Escalante Say more. I think Matthew gets cash from FB if this hits 800.
August 21 at 1:19am · Like · 7

Pater Edmund 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.
August 21 at 1:20am · Like · 2

JA Escalante um why did we never stroll for class then
August 21 at 1:20am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund Because we were co-ed and girls like to chat sitting down.
August 21 at 1:21am · Like · 7

JA Escalante so, TAC understands itself AS A ROSARY WALK? It all makes sense now!
August 21 at 1:21am · Like · 11

JA Escalante "peripatetic" ahem ahem
August 21 at 1:22am · Like · 3

JA Escalante but seriously...TAC half-understands what its doing as peripatetic discussion. But it also half-understands itself as teaching Catholic wisdom. It just leaves the relation of those two in practice to ad hoc improv on the part of tutors
August 21 at 1:24am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund 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.
August 21 at 1:25am · Edited · Unlike · 4

Jody Haaf Garneau I think there are several questions you've raised. What is TAC doing? (good question) Does TAC understand what it is doing? (I kind of think who cares to this one -- except when it comes to final cause) and most importantly, Is what it is doing effective?
August 21 at 1:26am · Like · 3

Jody Haaf Garneau "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'.
August 21 at 1:29am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau But if Newman said that… I might have to just agree. 
August 21 at 1:30am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund 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.
August 21 at 1:30am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund Jody Haaf Garneau: the "confused" part was from me; I'm OK with seminal.
August 21 at 1:30am · Like · 1

JA Escalante 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.
August 21 at 1:32am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund Well, theology is Regina in two senses: the other sciences are ordered to her, and she is the judge of them. I think the TAC curriculum embodies the former and towards the end gets you to see the later, but without actually embodying the later much.
August 21 at 1:36am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau 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.
August 21 at 1:36am · Unlike · 4

Pater Edmund But flesh out the Maritain Church/State analogy a bit more.
August 21 at 1:36am · Like

JA Escalante I mean there's no architectonic relation. The curriculum is self-standing
August 21 at 1:37am · Like

JA Escalante I'm not saying that people can't put it all together; they can and do. But it's not built into the ratio studiorum
August 21 at 1:37am · Like

JA Escalante anyhow we all know that the REAL regina scientiarum at TAC is math
August 21 at 1:38am · Like · 4

JA Escalante I mean consider: no one really gets thrown out for not cutting it in freshman theology; freshman math is the only severe criterion
August 21 at 1:40am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund The Berquist - Steadman Dialogue is very relevant here.
August 21 at 1:45am · Edited · Like · 1

Pater Edmund

August 21 at 1:46am · Unlike · 4

JA Escalante 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
August 21 at 1:46am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund

August 21 at 1:47am · Unlike · 2

Pater Edmund

August 21 at 1:47am · Unlike · 2

JA Escalante yes Mr Berquist had a clear conception of what he was up to. I'd just say that TAC as a whole never did, and never consistently embodied that "tutorial" idea
August 21 at 1:48am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund

August 21 at 1:48am · Unlike · 3

Pater Edmund OK, that I would agree with—particularly the admissions office and its propaganda never really understood the Berquist vision, or at least never really conveyed it.
August 21 at 1:49am · Like · 3

Pater Edmund The Berquist Steadman dialogue is here BTW:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED216573.pdf
August 21 at 1:50am · Edited · Unlike · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau That dialogue is kind of funny. It would have gone better if Mr Berquist could have done the questioning of the interviewer. I think that poor man had no idea how far off base his questions and semi-conclusions were.
August 21 at 1:51am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau by poor man, I mean Steadman
August 21 at 1:51am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund We used to do dramatic readings of that dialogue in the dorm late at night...
August 21 at 1:53am · Like · 5

JA Escalante 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?
August 21 at 1:53am · Like · 3

Pater Edmund ... after discovering it in a library sale.
August 21 at 1:53am · Like · 1

JA Escalante that dialogue is the paradigm of the experience of the Guest Lecturer
August 21 at 1:54am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund I remember going over to the Berquists house once (I think sophomore year) and Mrs B asked me" "What's your favorite class this year?" I hesitated and Mr B said "You're supposed to say theology."
August 21 at 1:56am · Like · 3

Jody Haaf Garneau I had the best theology tutors. That helps a lot.
August 21 at 1:57am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund But I think you're right that he wasn't entirely successful in getting theology to loom as large as he wanted.
August 21 at 1:57am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Ferrier, Berquist, MacArthur x 2
August 21 at 1:57am · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau But you guys aren't getting what he is saying about the 'whole' -- there are different ways for theology to be primary. It is that to which the program is ordered. Being the #1 reason for failing isn't one of them.
August 21 at 1:59am · Unlike · 2

Pater Edmund 817: tell us about the cash Matthew J. Peterson—how much did you get?
August 21 at 2:04am · Like · 3

Pater Edmund Jody Haaf Garneau, no that's true, but the fact that so many more graduates seem to want to study philosophy than theology in grad school —is that actually true? or am I just making that up? Idk —anyway, if it is true it would support JA's point.
August 21 at 2:06am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau 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)
August 21 at 2:08am · Unlike · 3

Pater Edmund Fair enough: http://youtu.be/TjHbuPkUKUY?t=6m26s

How to Become a Superstar Student at Thomas Aquinas College
August 21 at 2:11am · Edited · Like · 4

Jason Van Boom 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: 52 like this
August 21 at 2:13am · Unlike · 10

Pater Edmund Joel's first sarcastic comment above is now becoming kind of true.
August 21 at 2:18am · Like · 1

JA Escalante I feel the Development Office could use this. "Alumni involvement extremely high"
August 21 at 2:19am · Like · 6

Jody Haaf Garneau You were serious Jason!
August 21 at 2:24am · Like · 1

Jason Van Boom 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?
August 21 at 2:26am · Like · 6

Jody Haaf Garneau I think we are all bored. Or have really big things to do like Edward's thesis.
August 21 at 2:29am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund https://soundcloud.com/sancrucensis/marcus-berquist-common
August 21 at 2:31am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I have been reflecting on the current discussion and some previous remarks by the troll and I have come to this: 

It seems to me that the fullness of theology and the assent unto is found in the mass, and nowhere else. (This is taught, perhaps more clearly, or at least more often, in the Eastern tradition). The fulness of the faith does not consist in a body of written (or unwritten) doctrine. Perhaps this is why Our Lord says, "If you had faith the size of a mustard seed..."

That being said, the study of Sacred Doctrine in a formalized manner can and ought to advance one's relationship with God. We do not study contemplation in a formalized way, because it is not the sort of thing that really can be, unless one is brought to it by God. The reason for this is that teaching properly involves only the ordering of concepts in the order of learning so that the student's intellect can properly receive them. A teacher cannot, properly speaking, move the will. A teacher can (and probably should) do certain things to attempt to positively dispose the will of the student, but in the end, the will can only be moved by God. Thus, Pater Edmund, when Berquist said that Theology ought to be your answer when asked "What is your favorite class' maybe that is because your response said more about you and the disposition of your will. 

This is a dangerous type of argument to make, namely, "If you were good enough you would realize how good something is, and if you're not, then you won't." However, given the excellence of the course material that we study in theology, I feel confident in making such an argument.
August 21 at 2:42am · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 21 at 2:46am · Unlike · 4

Pater Edmund At some point Mr Coughlin (dean at the time) decided he had to do something about wrong expectations, and had the admissions people send the blue book to all applicants. It didn't make much difference.
August 21 at 2:48am · Unlike · 3

Pater Edmund "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
August 21 at 2:50am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund http://youtu.be/2dP54XzK1ok

Man Faced Ox Progeny - Down Our Way
A little clip from 2004 at Thomas Aquinas College. This barbershop quartet was excellent. They could have been big... maybe they still can...
August 21 at 2:52am · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman We had a great sound.
August 21 at 2:53am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund Dissertation calls.
August 21 at 2:53am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman ...and fully assented to the Faith.
August 21 at 2:53am · Like · 1

JA Escalante Daniel, that's just special pleading. The RCC has always regarded its theology as a textual corpus insofar as it is ecclesia docens
August 21 at 2:54am · Like · 1

JA Escalante but clever move
August 21 at 2:54am · Like

Daniel Lendman That is fair. In that regard, i was merely trying to understand how one can take seriously what the troll said.
August 21 at 2:55am · Like · 2

JA Escalante 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
August 21 at 3:01am · Like · 1

JA Escalante but I'm biased by my own experience. I left TAC for DSPT after two years because I wanted scholastic formation in its proper method. Let me tell you, learning logic (esp John of St Thomas) by lecture method felt like heaven after slogging through the Organon in "discussion method". But TAC still manages to work wonders despite what seems to me its somewhat ramshackle ratio, and I feel mostly patriotic feelings toward it
August 21 at 3:04am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 21 at 3:06am · Like · 3

JA Escalante oh sure. like I said, no one's fault
August 21 at 3:07am · Like · 2

JA Escalante and I agree with Jody that the founders were pretty heroic
August 21 at 3:07am · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman I also gained something from the DSPT course on Aristotelian logic. It was good to go back.
August 21 at 3:08am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau 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)
August 21 at 3:08am · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau And still growing. oh boy. 584,447...
August 21 at 3:09am · Like

JA Escalante still, I bet we beat anything Christendom College has ever done here
August 21 at 3:10am · Like · 5

JA Escalante 
August 21 at 3:10am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau I still think our word count is higher
August 21 at 3:13am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Edward Langley set out to do 1000. I think that is a noble goal.
August 21 at 3:14am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Or, at least a goal.
August 21 at 3:14am · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson https://m.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: 52 like this
August 21 at 3:29am · Like · 5

Pater Edmund 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.
August 21 at 4:28am · Unlike · 8

Pater Edmund I'm serious. This explains all the things that have puzzled me about your FB comments. Eg. I now understand your bizarre take on Klein on Descartes: OH! YOU NEVER DID JUNIOR MATH!
August 21 at 4:29am · Edited · Unlike · 4

Pater Edmund 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.
August 21 at 4:32am · Like · 1

Jason Van Boom I left TAC after four and a half years! I'm ultra qualified!
August 21 at 4:44am · Like · 4

Marie Pitt-Payne 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.
August 21 at 6:00am · Like · 2

Joel HF Pater Edmund I think more TACers DO study philosophy than theology post grad, but this may say more about the state of theology grad schools over the past 40 years.
August 21 at 6:35am · Edited · Unlike · 5

Joel HF 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.
August 21 at 7:01am · Like · 3

Pater Edmund Fair enough.
August 21 at 8:13am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 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.....
August 21 at 8:26am · Like · 2

John Ruplinger both. Some are predisposed. Others redirected. What else are they good for? (The modern world is unkindly disposed toward a more genuine liberal arts grad. Its a real problem. The traditional jobs are closed off. SJC has other probs but TAC would fit in a more sane world.)
August 21 at 8:34am · Edited · Like · 1

Marie Pitt-Payne 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....
August 21 at 8:37am · Like · 9

Peregrine Bonaventure JA, what is surreptitious theology? That's rich. Say more, but less surreptitiously. There's natural theology, sacred theology and surreptitious theology, which begins with surreptitious principles? Is surreptitious theology the marriage of metaphysics and sacred theology? Please, explain.
August 21 at 8:40am · Like

John Ruplinger hextuplets!
August 21 at 8:42am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel Lendman, you suggest below that the fullness of the Faith and assent to the Faith is found in the Mass. This is true in one sense, but possible misleading in another. The Mass is the transmitter of Sacred Tradition to the faithful. Sacred theology, as a course of study, is a science which begins with the sacred truths of the Catholic Faith, which are believed in Faith and by assent of the intellect and will. This is the relationship between Faith, as a virtue, and sacred theology as a science.
August 21 at 8:52am · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 9:03am · Edited · Like

Pater Edmund You read her point as a complaint?
August 21 at 9:05am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes. If the Mass is the transmitter of Tradition, helping us to grow in Faith and to share that Faith with others, in a spirit of charity and devotion, then sacred theology is its counterpart. It is the science that perfects our reason, virtues and habits. Its beginning is not quite the same as the Sacraments, but the deposit of Faith in its teaching principles. We assent to these with our mind and will. Then we engage in scientific inquiry, using reasonable form such as dialectic. It is more than modern science, which is observation; it involves the whole person, the will, the virtues, and the mind.
August 21 at 9:19am · Like

Joel HF 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.
August 21 at 9:20am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure And if Mass is the heart of the Catholic college community, the student should not have to go, filled with the grace of tradition, plunging back into discussion of Freud, James or Ellit, but a real theological inquiry, not just reading three or four of the best theologians, or the best of the best one, but one which begins with the Sacred truths of the Church as a whole...
August 21 at 9:22am · Like

Michael Beitia Who is Ellit? I don't think I had to read him
August 21 at 9:23am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Elliot. "Jug Jug, twit twit."
August 21 at 9:27am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure "Ae, ai, ai, ai, ai...

Jug jug, twit twi..."

TS Elliot.
August 21 at 9:28am · Like

Michael Beitia What's wrong with reading Eliot? or Freud?
August 21 at 9:28am · Like · 1

Joel HF I just checked, they read Elliot at Christendom too. Is there no college left that will magisterially magisterium the fullness of magisterium?
August 21 at 9:31am · Unlike · 9

Michael Beitia Magisterium your magisterial mouth Joel!
August 21 at 9:33am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure To suggest Freud and Eliot were like the secular works read in the medieval university is silly.
August 21 at 9:35am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure You need a teacher of literature to learn Elliot. He's too modern, too much a part of a critical literary-historical context. Freud is scandalous and in error.

Suppose they were benign... There would be nothing wrong in itself, but it is disproportionate time being given to the Great Books, at the expense of a holistic sacred theology.
August 21 at 9:35am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure To think that Freud and Eliot were the same kind of secular or pagan writings read in the medieval university seems naïve. It bogs down the curriculum, at the expense of the sacred.
August 21 at 9:37am · Like

Pater Edmund Tinbergen.
August 21 at 9:37am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Christendom Phil327..... studies Freud. How cavalier!
August 21 at 9:40am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia "holistic sacred theology"? Is that like healing crystals?
August 21 at 9:40am · Edited · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Pater, I actually picked up a copy of "Curious Naturalists" by Tinbergen at a library book sales a few years back. Really interesting.
August 21 at 9:42am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund «The philosophical disciplines are to be taught in such a way that the students are first of all led to acquire a solid and coherent knowledge of man, the world, and of God, relying on a philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid and taking into account the philosophical investigations of later ages. This is especially true of those investigations which exercise a greater influence in their own nations. Account should also be taken of the more recent progress of the sciences. The net result should be that the students, correctly understanding the characteristics of the contemporary mind, will be duly prepared for dialogue with men of their time.» (Vatican II, Optatam Totius)
August 21 at 9:43am · Unlike · 8

Michael Beitia waaaaaay too magisterial.
August 21 at 9:44am · Unlike · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick some of the tutors at TAC are literature Grads. . .
August 21 at 10:07am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure A lot of colleges hire doctors of literature, philosophy or psychology to teach the minutiae of specific writers. But, regardless, if you are a Catholic college and you teach sacred theology, you should teach sacred theology as the sacred science.
August 21 at 10:12am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure We don't have crystals in the heartland. Holistic means in its fullness, not just the best part extracted.
August 21 at 10:14am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure In the room the women come and go.
Talking of Michelangelo.
August 21 at 10:31am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure "Anybody want a peanut?" (Andre the Giant, in the Princess Bride)
August 21 at 10:33am · Like

Pater Edmund https://archive.org/details/LearningAndDiscipleship

Learning And Discipleship : Marcus Berquist : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
A lecture at Thomas Aquinas College
August 21 at 10:35am · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia so mocking Elliot with pulp movie garbage is sacred holistic crystal healing theology?
August 21 at 10:38am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I'm not mocking Elliot. I'm just suggesting that you need a real literature teacher to teach him. Someone with knowledge of the details of literary criticism. And with sacred theology, it needs to be taught as the sacred science, not piecemeal.
August 21 at 10:41am · Like

Michael Beitia so you're subscribing to the idea that in order to teach something you need to be specifically trained in that subject, right?
August 21 at 10:45am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund « But where there is no wanting, there is a word.
Which word wants not I want.
Want which word wants not.
The words of this word, my prophecy.
A scroll unfolding and rolling up, revealing
The beast in the word as the word, and the word
Made and the word made man. Yet
In the world by word made the word.
Honey to tasting, bitter to belly.

How shall I speak the end? The end is the word. »
August 21 at 10:49am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund « 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. »
August 21 at 10:53am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia ^I have no idea what you're typing about^
Does anyone know a literature PhD (preferably English literature, preferably 20th century) to explain this to me?
August 21 at 10:53am · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I'm just saying I find it ironic that Elliot"s Wasteland is an appeal for the restoration of an holistic sacred theology.
August 21 at 10:55am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Whether you need an instructor trained specifically on a particular subject matter depends on the subject. I do think there is a level of competencies when teaching Elliot. A traditional liberal arts education is not competency in all things. I do not think there is a problem with observable science, however, and sacred theology is very consistent with the liberal foundation. So it should be taught before Elliot, and other subjects which require specific competencies, because it is in the range of liberal arts, whereas Elliot is not. Unless it is mere art appreciation. Elliot requires a teacher with a literary criticism background. It really does, because Elliot imitates a fractured modernism, yet advocates for classical reform. This is not immediately obvious to the Catholic liberal arts student.
August 21 at 11:01am · Like

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 21 at 11:05am · Unlike · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure But all good things do not belong to sacred theology though. Only that gold which is the deposit of the Faith belongs to that science which is the sacred science.
August 21 at 11:08am · Like

Jason Van Boom I was at TAC WHEN THERE WERE HORSES.

When there was only one permanent building!

I was there in its hard, gritty days. The frontier days.

All these young whippersnappers have only known the luxury of permanent shelters.... Could they quickly saddle up and ride when a lookout cries, "WASC is coming! WASC is coming!"

JA Escalante
August 21 at 11:14am · Edited · Like · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure Jug jug. Twit twit.
August 21 at 11:16am · Like · 2

Jason Van Boom Finally, I agree with Peregrine on something!
August 21 at 11:17am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia per accidens or per se?
August 21 at 11:18am · Like · 1

Jason Van Boom Per accidens. I'm an infidel.
August 21 at 11:20am · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata.
Shantih shantih shantih
August 21 at 11:20am · Like · 2

Jason Van Boom ^^ 2nd time I've agreed with him.
August 21 at 11:20am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I enjoy the poetry of Elliot, but I don't agree with Peregott on principle
August 21 at 11:21am · Like · 1

Jason Van Boom 'Twas brillig, and the slithey toves
Did gyre and gimble in the seminar.
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths cried "Qua!!"
August 21 at 11:22am · Edited · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes the Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat--
And there isn't any need for me to spout it:
For he will do
As he do do
And there's no doing anything about it!
August 21 at 11:26am · Like

John Ruplinger 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?
August 21 at 11:54am · Unlike · 4

Michael Beitia You're not missing much. He's just quoting Elliot right now
August 21 at 11:58am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Here is where Eliot laments the fall of sacred theology replaced by art appreciation:

What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow 
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man, 20
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only 
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats, 
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief, 
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only 
There is shadow under this red rock, 25
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock), 
And I will show you something different from either 
Your shadow at morning striding behind you 
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; 
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
August 21 at 1:05pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund 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?
August 21 at 1:07pm · Edited · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure "Fear in a handful of dust" is when you participate in Holy Mass then have to sit through a seminar on the Book of Psalms led by an unemployable Renaissance man masquerading as Victorian man of leisure (without inheritance).

There is no water under the shadow of the red rock.

drip drip drip drip drip drip
But no water

O, the theology,
The modern ideology,
The sacred principle...
The sacred science,
The defiance.

I'm tired of the Victorian rag,

Shantih...
August 21 at 1:16pm · Like

Michael Beitia that's quite the dig at TAC tutors: "unemployable Renaissance man masquerading as a Victorian man of leisure (without inheritance)"

perhaps some might say that educating is a higher calling. But someone whose main thrust is "magisterium magisterium magisterium" wouldn't understand that.
August 21 at 1:22pm · Edited · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Let's just not proclaim that TAC does not teach sacred theology BECAUSE it is only for vowed religious or BECAUSE they did not study theology in the medieval university and TAC is a medieval university.

Let's agree that it is something. That it is something good. That it has a structure. That there is an approach to it. That it has first principles of Faith. That as a science, it is the queen, perfecting all knowledge. 

Shantih.

(I apologise for this interruption.)

I go back to under the red rock. 

Jug twit.
August 21 at 1:25pm · Like

Michael Beitia 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
August 21 at 1:26pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia well, not new
August 21 at 1:26pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Mea culpa. All praise to the Victorian rag. All praise to the man of leisure!
August 21 at 1:28pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure At least I have not shared in the fall of sacred theology.
August 21 at 1:28pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 1:29pm · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Imposter.

(Jug jug.)
August 21 at 1:29pm · Like

Michael Beitia Like Peregrott Weinavenburg?
August 21 at 1:30pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 1:31pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger LIS I was ANATHEMITIZED (pretty sure) by pope Peregrinne (amateur lay theologian). SO what does Peregrine think of the distinction of remote vs. proximate Magesterium. What is the Magisterium? THAT might clear up a lot of the troll beatings going on here.
August 21 at 1:33pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure The Peregrine hath no penne name.
August 21 at 1:34pm · Like

Michael Beitia 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
August 21 at 1:34pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Has he read Pastor Aeternus?
August 21 at 1:35pm · Like

Michael Beitia beats me
August 21 at 1:35pm · Like

Pater Edmund I would argue that Dei Verbum in fact endorses Bl. John Henry Newman's theology of development (which is what lead him out of Anglicanism). What part do you think is irreconcilable with the Syllabus?
August 21 at 1:37pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Let us all agree that sacred theology is! ...is good!!

It begins with the principles we believe in faith! It proceeds as a science.
August 21 at 1:37pm · Like

John Ruplinger It's his understanding of development
August 21 at 1:38pm · Like

John Ruplinger It's wrong
August 21 at 1:38pm · Like

John Ruplinger it's condemned by the Syllabus almost verbatim at points.
August 21 at 1:38pm · Like

John Ruplinger Doctrines are not "developed" like Newman says
August 21 at 1:39pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure The principles of the sacred science limit idle speculation, the substance of the senior thesis.
August 21 at 1:39pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 1:39pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger The problem with Newman's development:
August 21 at 1:40pm · Like

John Ruplinger Is that it opens the door to changing doctrines which is impossible.
August 21 at 1:40pm · Like

John Ruplinger ((((shhhhh....... Dei Verbum has some probs...... but I haven't read it in a long while))))))) I remember when I taught Scripture the first time, I went digging in Dei Verbum and others more recent. I was very disappointed because I was clueless as to WHAT the Church teaches.
August 21 at 1:41pm · Like

John Ruplinger I wish I had read more closely Providentissimus Deus because it's very very clear there and so helpful.
August 21 at 1:42pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I would agree that Dei Verbum supports Newman's theology of development, and more. I thought the theology of development presupposes the Thomistic synthesis.

Water under the shadow of the red rock.
August 21 at 1:42pm · Like

John Ruplinger It's not so much like seeds, Pater Edmund, as it is like an already sapling tree that grows new branches with time. The problem with development (as modernly understand) is that it is an easy tool for the full blown modernists to use to overturn unchangeable doctrine: they do it and they have done it.
August 21 at 1:44pm · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick 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)
August 21 at 1:45pm · Unlike · 3

John Ruplinger But did the Immaculate Conception ever "develop" or was it always there but merely debated??? that is the question (edit: the only development would be with our better understanding of conception and more certitude as to when the soul comes into existence)
August 21 at 1:46pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Newman was not replacing one thing with another.
August 21 at 1:47pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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)
August 21 at 1:47pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson The history of theology is nothing but development on our end - but - even worse! - it is development ever born of heresy, and reaction to heresy before it is even determined to be such, and after - heresy which is new every morning and thus timeless! And this development is born of crisis, amidst brutal and emotional politics, and intertwined with so much other than the pursuit of truth in the abstract: much like, for instance, this very thread.

And yet our view of the Truth does change over time: and this is a traditional thing to say, because it is manifestly true, and does not entail that what truly is changes with our whims.
August 21 at 1:54pm · Edited · Unlike · 2

John Ruplinger That's Newman's take which everyone now says.
August 21 at 1:55pm · Like

John Ruplinger I don't agree.
August 21 at 1:55pm · Like

John Ruplinger But I am only an amateur.
August 21 at 1:55pm · Like

John Ruplinger In my opinion there are NO real theologians anymore not one. (or very very few). THIS on the authority of that tiara I gots on my head right now. So there.
August 21 at 1:56pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Development, clarity -- they can mean the same. Refining things that have always been seminally there.
August 21 at 1:56pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson I think over *most* of the first 1000 years most would actually have agreed with Newman, although they might have put it differently - and this difference in language might signify more - and put you more at ease. But have to run.

Pull back up at the bar here on my way home.
August 21 at 1:57pm · Edited · Like · 2

John Ruplinger no seminales. There's a difference between indistinct and something that can morph. (this is to Jody Haaf.)
August 21 at 1:57pm · Edited · Like

Matthew J. Peterson And answering very real questions that were never asked until circumstances changed, etc.
August 21 at 1:57pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 2:00pm · Like

John Ruplinger Wherefore, Pius X brought in the hammer of all hammer's of the synthesis of all heresies, PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS. Yeah, I'll take some of that please.
August 21 at 2:01pm · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau That isn't how I read Newman. But that would be a whole other thread to do a reading!
August 21 at 2:01pm · Like

John Ruplinger No, Jody. I used to not either........ It may be that my pendulum has swung a bit to far in the other direction.
August 21 at 2:03pm · Like

John Ruplinger But when you figure out who and what the modernists are, that'll happen to you.
August 21 at 2:03pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger (modernists as defined in Pascendi of course: theological modernists)_
August 21 at 2:03pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau I guess someone could misapply Newman's principles but that doesn't make him in error on this. Apparently that has happened.
August 21 at 2:06pm · Like

John Ruplinger NO. no no. Propositions in that work are explicitly and almost (with the same words) condemned by Syllabus of Errors. Remember he wrote that as still an Anglican.
August 21 at 2:07pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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).
August 21 at 2:08pm · Like

Michael Beitia less like a sapling, John, and more like the blooming of a flower.
August 21 at 2:10pm · Like

Michael Beitia let's get all poetical and sh*t
August 21 at 2:11pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger I suppose I'll take back my analogy (but I didn't start it).
August 21 at 2:12pm · Like

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 21 at 2:13pm · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman For the general edification of the masses: 
https://docs.google.com/.../0BxhNFgNx8xzUOWZmYzBkNTg.../edit
Waldstein- on the Religious sense.mp3 - Google Drive
docs.google.com
August 21 at 2:14pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia can somebody please change their profile pic? All these Arabic "n"s are getting confusing.
August 21 at 2:14pm · Edited · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Newman himself places doctrine central to his theology of development. He is not describing catechesis either. It is a process over time and history in time to think of the principles of the Faith such as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which is a fuller articulation of what was revealed in the Bible and through the early Traditions. Now the more current articulation invites theological inquiry on a wide range of issues such as the effects of Original Sin or the relationship between conception and the human person. But over time I think it is fair to say that sacred theology has a framework.
August 21 at 2:14pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Clearly you hate persecuted Christians.
August 21 at 2:14pm · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia no, just lay theologians
August 21 at 2:15pm · Unlike · 5

Daniel Lendman Sorry Michael, I got carried away having read too much trollese.
August 21 at 2:15pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman ouch
August 21 at 2:15pm · Unlike · 2

Matthew J. Peterson A very basic knowledge is all that is needed: the cartoon of static stasis is absurd.

What serious aspect of the Faith since Christ ascended wasn't hammered out by human beings confronting heresy that wasn't even understood as heresy yet?

Where has there NOT been development?

This fear of development reveals an failure to comprehend theology itself.

From St. Peter grappling with *whether non-Jews could even become Christians at all* on out to the right understanding of the Trinity. 

We all need to take some meat with our milk.
August 21 at 2:17pm · Edited · Like · 4

John Ruplinger oooooooooouuuuch.
August 21 at 2:18pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau John -- can you support your claim that ODCD was condemned? Does this mean I have to go read ODCD and PDG side-by-side and it will be self evident? Nothing more than that?
August 21 at 2:20pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger 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]
August 21 at 2:21pm · Edited · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Knowing, understanding, and naming are all different steps.
August 21 at 2:21pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Well - I don't know - they didn't need to. Others later on did.
August 21 at 2:22pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure I don't think doctrine or the sacred principles of theology are born from reaction to or suppression of heresy, any more than the Bible was, which it wasn't. And I don't think the Newman suggests this either. The Bible is revelation that tells a story, which is an unfolding. It is a rose opening gradually over time, in a beautiful and formal way.
August 21 at 2:22pm · Like

John Ruplinger Jody, READ the Syllabus. Save it. It's short. Just ask yourself whether you believe these things condemned or not. I have it on very very good authority that his book was suspect of heresy. If you really want I can look it up, but my time on the internet is very short. I know one author who does a most excellent job, but some might not be able to handle the MEAT that he feeds 
August 21 at 2:23pm · Edited · Like · 1

John Ruplinger fixed it Matthew.
August 21 at 2:26pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Haha. I'm not trying to slam you or anyone else. I just get grumpy. There is an easy ideology of static stasis in some Christian circles that needs to be thoroughly disinfected.

The Syllabus of Errors and some grumpy Popes are not answer books for all time to be used as two dimensional standards of ideas - the syllabus is composed of general condemnations culled out of context from prior and complicated events and writings, as Newman points out.

But really, as even a cursory history of doctrine makes clear, councils don't meet and decide what people should believe in the midst of flowering fields: they are called to respond to need, and the messy demands of fragile human beings in very flawed communities trying to figure out what the hell to do and think about what's good and true.
August 21 at 2:26pm · Like · 4

John Ruplinger I AM NOT STATIC NO NO NO NO
August 21 at 2:27pm · Like · 3

John Ruplinger I have jettisoned more opinions than many minions of TAC hold in a lifetime.
August 21 at 2:27pm · Like · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick I take the minion thing as a compliment... They're cute 
August 21 at 2:28pm · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia never seen it #tooold
August 21 at 2:28pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger SCREW THAT. Grumpy popes man. Now i
August 21 at 2:28pm · Like

John Ruplinger am taking off the gloves.
August 21 at 2:28pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 21 at 2:29pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Time for good old fashioned bronze knuckles a la Homeric boxing rules.
August 21 at 2:29pm · Like

John Ruplinger Menin aeide thea Ruplingeri
August 21 at 2:29pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger But the Holy Spirit does not guarantee
August 21 at 2:31pm · Like

Michael Beitia Which hurled the souls of strong lay theologians into the house of Hades?
August 21 at 2:31pm · Like

John Ruplinger EVERY
August 21 at 2:31pm · Like

John Ruplinger council............................most were FALSE.
August 21 at 2:31pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I like grumpy Popes too. But not sure how effective they are or have been though. Internal reform is more a matter of doing and restructuring than it is of yelling about error interlectually speaking from on high. That didn't stop the Reformation nor the Enlightenment.
August 21 at 2:31pm · Like

John Ruplinger THAT IS THE PROBLEM MATTHEW. because they denounce error, they appear to us as grumpy
August 21 at 2:32pm · Like

Michael Beitia right, Matthew, let's just go with I'm okay, you're okay
August 21 at 2:32pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Yeah, that sounds good. Pascendi was very interesting. Someone should write a play about it. Haha. Some doctrines seem to be born out of correcting heresy and some seem to be gifts from God. I'm still learning about the history of doctrine, but it is interesting that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception seems to be heralding a kind of Marian age. In the grand scheme of things, though, I do think we see a formal structure for sacred theology, and I do not think this is above the layman or the TAC student who is very smart.
August 21 at 2:32pm · Like

John Ruplinger FALSE PERSPECTIVE
August 21 at 2:32pm · Like

John Ruplinger PLEASE, Matthew, you of all people should be recommending Pope Barney the purple dinosaur.
August 21 at 2:33pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson To clarify, I use "Holy Spirit guarantee" a bit tongue in cheek. What that actually means doctrinally is a complicated business.
August 21 at 2:33pm · Edited · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Pope Pius X was a lamb, a lamb I tell you. Pascendi is what happens when you tear his sheep to pieces. The lamb has teeth and a roar then. That's real "pastoral" for you viz. Pascere in Latin, like the first word of his document. The intro. to that document is great and MANLY
August 21 at 2:35pm · Like

John Ruplinger none of the new fad limp wristed crap.
August 21 at 2:35pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure The Holy Spirit confers gifts to Catholic via the Sacraments. Those are virtues. It also guides the Church in Her teachings. And sacred theology is a science whereby we use these gifts in an effective way to build up the academic body of the Church.
August 21 at 2:37pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I'm not recommending "I'm OK, you're OK", fwiw

What did the Syllabus accomplish other than making present day trads feel good whenever they trot it out?
August 21 at 2:37pm · Like

John Ruplinger silly. That document helped lead me from confusion to understand what tradition is.
August 21 at 2:38pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger I wasn't born in a cave. I only choose to live there now 
August 21 at 2:38pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia John, do you see the need for many of the modern encyclicals?
August 21 at 2:38pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I think it helped lead to the VII myself, and the very parts that the defenders of the Syllabus hate most of all.
August 21 at 2:39pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Just call me Supertroll if you will................
August 21 at 2:39pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Michael, if I need to start a fire. Is that what you mean. 
August 21 at 2:39pm · Like

John Ruplinger (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.
August 21 at 2:43pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure The Syllabus was throwing bone to the rad trads. They are still chewing on it. It's the bone that keeps on giving.
August 21 at 2:44pm · Like

Michael Beitia uhm, there were no "rad trads" during Pius IX's pontificate.
August 21 at 2:46pm · Unlike · 3

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 2:46pm · Unlike · 1

John Ruplinger right because trad = catholics
August 21 at 2:47pm · Like

Michael Beitia what's the heresy being fought in Lumen Fidei?
August 21 at 2:47pm · Like

John Ruplinger It's just that many many non-trads are not catholic.
August 21 at 2:47pm · Like

Michael Beitia ^you're one of them^?
August 21 at 2:47pm · Like

John Ruplinger Lumen Fidei?????
August 21 at 2:47pm · Like

Michael Beitia what doctrine is being defined, or heresy fought?
August 21 at 2:48pm · Like

John Ruplinger that's stupid Michael.
August 21 at 2:48pm · Like

Michael Beitia is it?
August 21 at 2:48pm · Like

Michael Beitia it's just a question
August 21 at 2:48pm · Like

John Ruplinger ??
August 21 at 2:48pm · Like

Michael Beitia so I guess you're saying "none"
August 21 at 2:48pm · Like

John Ruplinger What is Lumen Fidei? What is your question?
August 21 at 2:49pm · Like

Michael Beitia no, it is an encyclical. What is the point of it?
August 21 at 2:49pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Oh, I didn't read that. I haven't read new Encycs in a few years.
August 21 at 2:50pm · Like

Michael Beitia (wink wink- nudge nudge) don't assume we're all always arguing
August 21 at 2:51pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Maybe I should ask everyone:
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE ENCYCLICAL, LUMEN FIDEI?
August 21 at 2:52pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure That love is not the core of faith. That's the heresy being fought in Lumen Fidei. But it does not fight that heresy. It just states it in a positive way. Love and devotion are at the core of faith.

The Syllabus is timeless, an early gift.
August 21 at 2:54pm · Like

John Ruplinger indeed.............what is the point? that is often the question. Do we have more or less clarity. It's like an "undevelopment" of the faith. i just want a brick wall I can beat my head against sometimes when I look at the confused world. Does anyone read Jacob Klein's "ON PRECISION" anymore. Great piece: explains everything you need to know about so much that is written.
August 21 at 2:54pm · Like

Michael Beitia 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)
August 21 at 2:59pm · Edited · Like · 1

John Ruplinger .............. I wonder why
August 21 at 2:58pm · Like

Nina Rachele ^...sorry, what?
August 21 at 2:59pm · Like · 2

Nina Rachele maybe I can't distinguish sarcasm from reality anymore.
August 21 at 3:00pm · Like · 2

Nina Rachele 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.
August 21 at 3:01pm · Like · 7

John Ruplinger life IS disappointment 
August 21 at 3:03pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele thanks for the update, Buddha.
August 21 at 3:03pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger I was just kidding. I think that's from Princess Bride, I haven't read Buddha. 
August 21 at 3:04pm · Edited · Like · 1

Nina Rachele ... I was just ribbing you, sir, haha.
August 21 at 3:05pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Please share those definitions.

It's just that we have to reach 1000 by midnight or Peterson's fb turns into a pumpkin.
August 21 at 3:06pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 1052
August 21 at 3:06pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger 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
August 21 at 3:06pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia Can I wax nostalgic for 1 page encyclicals?
August 21 at 3:07pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia or is that too "grumpy pope"?
August 21 at 3:08pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Just started reading the Catechism of Trent a few months ago AND if that isn't precisely like the remedy for our age, I don't know what is. very precise (and hard hitting) and YES MICHAEL WHY ARE THEY ALL SO DAMN RAMBLING LONG!!!
August 21 at 3:08pm · Like

John Ruplinger Wasn't rambling the criticism by Garagou Lagrange of a certain dissertaion of a certain.......
August 21 at 3:09pm · Like

Michael Beitia http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

UNAM SANCTAM
www.papalencyclicals.net
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims:…
August 21 at 3:09pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 21 at 3:12pm · Edited · Unlike · 5

Nina Rachele There are 5 senses of "development of ideas" which Newman thinks can be used in Christian Doctrine: political, logical, historical, moral, and metaphysical
August 21 at 3:09pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure St. Paul just says charity is the greatest. He never said charity was the core of faith. So, Pope Francis amps it up to the next level.
August 21 at 3:10pm · Like

John Ruplinger ...............theological ???
August 21 at 3:10pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele who is Nina Gapinski? and will they feel uncomfortable being tagged in this post?
August 21 at 3:10pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure How bout just papal talking points?
August 21 at 3:10pm · Like

Michael Beitia Peterson: we move in a circle
August 21 at 3:11pm · Like

Michael Beitia the eternal return of the same, a wise fellow remarked 900 comments ago
August 21 at 3:12pm · Unlike · 3

Matthew J. Peterson Sorry Nina Rachele - tagged wrong person.
August 21 at 3:13pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger I love GRUMPY OLD POPES. DEAR GOD, PLEASE GRANT US AGAIN YOUR GRUMPY OLD POPES. UNAM SANCTAM is short and sweet 
August 21 at 3:14pm · Edited · Like · 1

Nina Rachele "[...] 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
August 21 at 3:14pm · Like

Nina Rachele No worries, Mr. Peterson, I just thought she might be a little surprised to be tagged...
August 21 at 3:15pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Pope Francis in Lumen Fidei amped up St. Paul's doctrine of charity. Kind of like when Dylan went electric. Kind of like Newman's moral and metaphysical development. And historical. Lumen Fidei reads like a history.
August 21 at 3:16pm · Like

John Ruplinger I really miss the stakeburnings too.
August 21 at 3:17pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele I have a big "huh?" next to most of the ethical development passage... "Ethical developments are not properly matter for argument and controversy, but are natural and personal, substituting what is congruous, pious, appropriate, generous, for strictly logical inference." pg 47 ch 1 section 6. The main example he gives later is "The Holy Eucharist" which I think refers generally to the development whereby He was reserved in the Tabernacle, and then the later development of Eucharistic adoration.
August 21 at 3:22pm · Like

Nina Rachele Don't need to quote historical developments, it just means finding the right dates of things that happened in Scripture.
August 21 at 3:23pm · Edited · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Here is Newman, post Syllabus Errorum, trying to undermine said syllabus: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f057_Newman_2.htm

Newman and the Pope - Part II by James Larson
www.traditioninaction.org
John Henry Newman undermines the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX
August 21 at 3:24pm · Like

John Ruplinger He led a campaign to undermine it because he KNEW that he held (at least at one time) many of the things condemned.
August 21 at 3:25pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele Logical developments also don't really have one place for their definition, just that "the intellectual process is detached from the practical, and posterior to it." From his examples, I think he's mostly referring to when certain practices or ideas are held just as empty words in one generation, then in the next the actual spirit of the words gets taken up as a real thing. A good example might be the civil rights movement insisting on actual equality a hundred years after it was granted to them in principle.
August 21 at 3:30pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 3:30pm · Like

John Ruplinger http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partvi

Part VI: Does God Love Us: An Examination of the Epistemology of John Henry Newman | The War...
www.waragainstbeing.com
"Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration." (James 1: 17)
August 21 at 3:30pm · Like

Nina Rachele 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.
August 21 at 3:32pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele ::drops mike::
August 21 at 3:32pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 3:32pm · Edited · Like · 1

Nina Rachele Mr. Ruplinger, just for clarification, my "huh?" next to the ethical development passage was because he was quoting a verbose bishop as some kind of example and it flew right over my head.
August 21 at 3:35pm · Edited · Like · 1

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 3:37pm · Edited · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Now this is actually going somewhere!
August 21 at 3:37pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger I'm out for a while.
August 21 at 3:38pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Lauren Ogrodnick: this isn't "going anywhere." 

This thread just is. 

To be sure, we are in time in relation to it. So we may go somewhere based on our interaction with it. But it itself is outside of time, in time only by operation.
August 21 at 3:40pm · Unlike · 7

Nina Rachele 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...
August 21 at 3:41pm · Like · 4

Daniel P. O'Connell Okay Proclus ...
August 21 at 3:41pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I like logical development. The civil rights example seems like a good analogy. (The letter of the law was promulgated centuries ago. But the spirit is being brought into life as we go along.) The doctrine of charity is also good. St. Paul said charity is the greatest of the great virtues and without it there is nothing. St. Thomas said that love orders everything in context and proportion. And pope Francis says that charity is an act of trust central to faith and which fulfills the gift of faith. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception might be another example. What do the words mean? Is her intellect, will and imagination really perfect and without flaw? Yes, but what does this mean? What does this say about her place in heaven before God, and about human nature now, and in terms of our restoration, and what does it say about humanity's relationship with her in salvation history? Much can be filled in.
August 21 at 3:48pm · Like

Joel HF What is immanentism?
August 21 at 3:48pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure What is immanentism? This is a good question. In my own words, it is a heresy that was addressed in the condemnation of modernism, which proposed that revelation is presented in one big data dump, at a certain harmonic convergence in the very near future. It is contrary to Newman's idea, and the theological inquiry, which is a reasonable discovery of revelation, proceeding from principles which are vouchsafed by the Church in union with the Holy Spirit.
August 21 at 3:57pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Newman's idea of metaphysical development is the orthodox contrary of immanentism. It seems often to be the work of the Ordinary Magisterium, the sapiential exposition of doctrine, such as the treatise of the relationship between charity and faith in Lumen Fidei. Prior to this encyclical, Pople John Paul II underscored the importance of the sapiential in Christian philosophies. This seems to be a logical development in Newman's paradigm.
August 21 at 4:17pm · Like

John Ruplinger jhf read pascendi. I will summarize ltr.
August 21 at 4:21pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Nina, I don't know you, but I like you already.
August 21 at 4:31pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure I wonder. The ordinary magisterium often seems engaged in Newman's metaphysical. The extraordinary magisterium, in the promulgation of dogma, seems occupied with the logical. 

Jug jug.
August 21 at 5:23pm · Like

Megan Baird Random sidebar: Still not sure why Peregrine insists on mispelling Beitia's name....
August 21 at 6:47pm · Edited · Unlike · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau One of life's finer mysteries Megan
August 21 at 6:48pm · Unlike · 3

Jody Haaf Garneau It probably goes back to comment 127
August 21 at 6:49pm · Unlike · 1

Megan Baird Please summarize comment 127...
August 21 at 6:56pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau I'm kidding. I don't know when it started --but I believe the wrong name usage predated this particular thread
August 21 at 7:43pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger 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.
August 21 at 7:43pm · Like

John Ruplinger Joel HF, immanence signifies the divine presence in all people or all people. It is pantheistic, often signified contemporarily as "divine experience" found in all religions. It often accompanies the belief in universal salvation. De Chardin comes to mind.
August 21 at 7:53pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Newman studied sacred theology. He knew what it was. He did not propose a new form. He just introduced some of his fascinating observations. 

Why don't more Catholic colleges participate in theological inquiry? Reading a few of the best Catholic theologians and discussing them in a seminar seems to fall a bit short of the rigor that students today might be capable of.
August 21 at 8:12pm · Like

Nina Rachele 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.
August 21 at 8:46pm · Edited · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure So why don't you propose banning them from writing theological theses? At least then those coddled babies wouldn't be drifting off into idle speculation. As far as I know, Saint Pius X did not prescribe any age requirements in his list of banned activities. Are you old enough to participate in a theological discussion? Can I see your license?
August 21 at 9:07pm · Edited · Like

Joshua Kenz Wow...I return to this thread to find it exploded....somewhere I was tagged, but FB is too stupid to take me directly to that comment....so I had to dig a bit to find it, only to find that much has expired since. And I am afraid by the time I catch up and think on it, I will be in the dust again. But if I can make a general observation on Newman....Mr. Ruplinger points to Newman's epistemology. That is the heart of the issue.

I loved Newman when I first read him, his Apologia pro vita sua namely. I was turned off when I read the Grammar of Assent. For those familiar with the analytic tradition of philosophy, you will recognize that in Newman, even though he actually predated it. Many of the same principles held by Frege and other analytics prevail in Newman. It is not as favorable to logic though in the direction he takes it. People have use "personalism" but a better description might be a methodological nominalism...actually, scratch that. He was straight up nominalist. Universals, in his mind, were just vague generlities, that need not even apply in the concrete.

Take "man is rational" For Newman that might be a justified generalization, but he will say that doesn't mean all men are rational

But let us here his own words:

"Since, as a rule, men are rational, progressive, and social, there is a high probability of this rule being true in the case of a particular person; but we must know him to be sure of it." (Grammar of Assent, chap. 8 §1 par. 2)

We can only, then, really know individuals. Only "facts in the concrete"

If you want to read for yourself more: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/grammar/chapter8-1.html
Newman Reader - Grammar of Assent - Chapter 8
www.newmanreader.org
{259} I is the conditional acceptance of a proposition, Assent is the unconditional; the object of Assent is a truth, the object of Inference is the truth-like or a verisimilitude. The problem which I have undertaken is that of ascertaining how it comes to pass that a conditional act leads to an unc…
August 21 at 9:19pm · Like · 3

Joshua Kenz 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.
August 21 at 9:23pm · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson Christopher Wolfe do you have thoughts re analytics and Newman above?
August 21 at 9:25pm · Like

Joshua Kenz 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
August 21 at 9:26pm · Edited · Like · 5

Matthew J. Peterson Joshua Kenz: what is the alternative document, author, view, etc,, as you see it, to Newman when it comes to explain the historical fact of the widely developing doctrine of the Church over time - from the early Church determining whether or not it should admit non-Jews to the finer points of the Trinity, etc.
August 21 at 9:28pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Peterson, isn't it self evident that the truth unfolds over time?
August 21 at 9:32pm · Like

JA Escalante thank you Joshua
August 21 at 9:34pm · Like · 2

Sean Robertson 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.
August 21 at 9:38pm · Like · 9

Michael Beitia I certainly don't.... 
August 21 at 9:39pm · Unlike · 1

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 21 at 9:51pm · Unlike · 6

JA Escalante ^ Modernist
August 21 at 9:53pm · Unlike · 4

JA Escalante you're gonna "develop" yourself right into a doctrine of Divine Quaternity or some mess
August 21 at 9:53pm · Like

Joshua Kenz Mr. Peterson, not a clue. I am not sure if Newman was the first (always a dangerous claim!) but he is certainly the most prominent person to put forward a theory of "development." I mean, obviously earlier scholastics recognized some sort of development. Such is implicit in the debates about what can constitute dogma. e.g. if the minor premise is de fide, but the major is from reason, is the conclusion capable of being de fide? Do both premises have to be? Just major? Without getting into an argument about the roles of syllogisms in dogma, such arguments presume the possibility of discursive reason discovering truth that are de fide, from one or more premises already known de fide. And as such a growth in understand and knowledge. We can say more particular truths are contained in more universal truths, and if you want Newman's terminology, the more universal ideas would become seminal ideas.

Now this is just off the cuff, so take it with a grain of salt. But does it not seem that Newman's rejection of syllogistic reasoning (except as giving mere probability), universals (let alone truths more universal containing particulars), etc. make the question of development something that required a book to try and defend and try and avoid something like evolution of dogma? If you hold the ability to have universals and reason with certitude from them to other propositions, doesn't the problem largely disappear? While admitting that the historical process was messy, and not necessarily accomplished without a bunch of groping and feeling.
August 21 at 9:54pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Sorry, I didn't mean idle speculation or surreptitious theology in a bad way. I was just thinking there might be a fairly consistent pattern to the way sacred truth unfolds over time, as if we are neither together in the cave, nor alone outside of the cave, but part of a Tradition, with its own sacred science.
August 21 at 9:55pm · Like

JA Escalante 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)
August 21 at 9:56pm · Like

Michael Beitia JAson, Peterson is a heretic. His animist writings on the "spirit of the bear" have been roundly condemned
August 21 at 10:03pm · Unlike · 4

JA Escalante I discerned his wickedness the day I met him
August 21 at 10:03pm · Edited · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I have to ask, though, as a protestant, do you see doctrine developing a la Newman?
August 21 at 10:04pm · Like

JA Escalante absolutely not
August 21 at 10:04pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia is the reform of the reform (in your mind) something nascent in Christianity?
August 21 at 10:05pm · Like

JA Escalante but that is not really a conversation for this thread. Let's stick to Peterson's wickedness
August 21 at 10:05pm · Like · 5

Michael Beitia fair enough. I'll message you some other time.....
August 21 at 10:05pm · Like

JA Escalante if I were Catholic I would regard Newman's epistemology and developmentalism as a trojan horse; I'll say that much, Message me privately
August 21 at 10:06pm · Like · 3

Christopher Wolfe Well Matthew J. Peterson, I'm in the same boat as Joshua since I haven't been following this massive number of comments, but I'll throw in my 2 bits. Joshua's quote from Newman which he described as "nominalist" might be nominalist but then again not. The way I would describe that Newman quote is: "set-theory," and yes, it is quite similar to what analytics such as Gottlob Frege say because predicate logic involves "sets," not universals. However philosopher who accepts set theory and predicate logic needn't be a "set theory nominalist," and can be very close to holding an Aristotelian theory of universals depending on what he says about necessity and possibility- Peter Geach and GE Anscombe are the best examples of that sort of thing. Anscombe wrote and accepted ALOT of what Aristotle claims, but never herself accepted his theory of the forms in his writings as far as I can tell. That's why she doesn't necessarily think of the soul as the form of the body, and wrote essays like "Immortality of the Soul" arguing that when we die we could be resurrected without anything like Aristotle's potential intellect surviving. It was Anscombe's backup plan just in case the nominalists were correct about universals.
August 21 at 10:28pm · Like · 3

Christopher Wolfe P.S.- A majority of orthodox Catholic theologians during the middle ages WERE nominalists, historical fact (eg, see John Marenbon's book).
August 21 at 10:29pm · Like · 2

Christopher Wolfe As for Newman, I read in a biography about him that after becoming Catholic he went to Rome seeking the Thomists out to learn from them, but the Thomism he found literally was a shambles of a school at the time (that was before Aeterni Patris, of course). So I think Newman really was coming out of a different education than we Thomists are used to, and was trying to figure things out without the intellectual resources we can now rely on
August 21 at 10:35pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure This is the type of speculative analysis that... Newman wasn't a nominalist involved in set theory!
August 21 at 10:37pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I mean, with all due respect, I think that might be a misinterpretation of Newman, for what it is worth. Newman did embrace universals and abstraction and form in an Aristotelean and Thomistic sense.
August 21 at 10:48pm · Like · 1

Christopher Wolfe 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?
August 21 at 10:50pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It seems Newman adhered to Aristotle and also adhered to the idea that theology is more specific that universal knowledge. But I do not think this means that the universal knowledge of the University is to be considered as a universal set of things to be known in a nominalist way, with theology being a subset of that to be known in a niminalist manner. He did cleave to sacred theology, and the theology of the Church. He did not confude these two things. He did not propose that theology is the queen of the sciences at the University that governs over universal knowledge. On the contrary, theology is particular branch of study. 

"A University, I should lay down, by its very name professes to teach universal knowledge: Theology is surely a branch of knowledge: how then is it possible for it to profess all branches of knowledge, and yet to exclude from the subjects of its teaching one which, to say the least, is as important and as large as any of them? I do not see that either premiss of this argument is open to exception. As to the range of University teaching, certainly the very name of University is inconsistent with restrictions of any kind." (From Discourse II, The Idea of a University)

“As to the intellectual position from which I have contemplated the subject (of human knowledge), Aristotle has been my master.” (John Henry Newman, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, University of Notre Dame Press (1979), p. 334.)
August 21 at 11:07pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante That quote from Newman basically describes what goes on at TAC. So what again were all these ten jillion comments about?
August 21 at 11:17pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure And I think what Newman is describing below is essentially the way Aristotle described intuition, reason, experience, metaphor, induction, abstraction, imagination and knowing:

"The mind ranges to and fro, and spreads out and advances forward with a quickness which has become a proverb, and a subtlety and versatility which baffle investigation. It passes on from point to point, gaining one by some indication; another by probability; then availing itself of an association; then falling back upon some received law; next seizing on some inward instinct, or some obscure memory; and thus it makes progress not unlike a clamberer on a steep cliff, who, by quick eye, prompt hand, and firm foot, ascends, how, he knows not how himself, by personal endowments and by practice, rather than by rule, leaving no track behind him, and unable to teach another. It is not too much to say that the stepping by which great geniuses scale the mountain of truth is as unsafe and precarious to men in general as the ascent of a skillful mountaineer up a literal crag. It is a way which they alone can take; and its justification lies alone in their success. And such mainly is the way in which all men, gifted or not gifted, commonly reason — not by rule, but by an inward faculty. Reasoning, then, or the exercise of reason, is a living, spontaneous energy within us, not an art." (From "Implicit and Explicit Reason," Sermon 13 in Fifteen Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford -- Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998).

"Every one who reasons, is his own centre; and no expedient for attaining a common measure of minds can reverse this truth; -- but then the question follows, is there any criterion of the accuracy of an inference, such as may be our warrant that certitude is rightly elicited in favour of the proposition inferred, since our warrant cannot, as I have said, be scientific? I have already said that the sole and final judgment on the validity of an inference in concrete matter is committed to the personal action of the ratiocinative faculty, the perfection or virtue of which I have called the Illative Sense, a use of the word 'sense' parallel to our use of it in 'good sense', 'common sense', a 'sense of beauty', &c.; and I own I do not see any way to go farther than this in answer to the question." (An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, Chapter 9)

I think this makes him Aristotelean not nominalist.
August 21 at 11:17pm · Like

JA Escalante 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
August 21 at 11:20pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure And I think TAC theology is specifically NOT how Newman describes theology. TAC is clearly NOT Newman's idea of a University. Theology is not the queen of universal knowledge. Let's pause for a moment.
August 21 at 11:21pm · Like

JA Escalante hahaha unargued assertions. we have come to this
August 21 at 11:21pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Nope, he says that truth is derived through reason.
August 21 at 11:21pm · Like

JA Escalante except that reason for him isnt "scientific". But it is for Aquinas.
August 21 at 11:22pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure He just describes reason as the ratiocinative faculty. But it's all the same thing.
August 21 at 11:22pm · Like

JA Escalante apparently they ignore distinctions at Christendom
August 21 at 11:23pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure It is scientific for Newman in the traditional sense of science, but NOT in the contemporary sense of science. That's why Newman seems to be talking all over the place. It's all about context.
August 21 at 11:23pm · Edited · Like

Matthew J. Peterson 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...
August 21 at 11:24pm · Unlike · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Let's save Christendom for another time. But sacred theology at Christendom is pretty darn specific. And may the south rise again
August 21 at 11:24pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson But this too quick dismissal of Newman also needs to be discussed.

Thank God this thread is outside of time.
August 21 at 11:25pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure JA Escalante needs to slow down outside of time.
August 21 at 11:25pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 21 at 11:26pm · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Newman says that the University should study all things. But theology studies specific things, not all things. It studies the data of revelation. You do not need to connect theology to all things, like modern science. DeKonick can rest. But you need to study theology and get it right.
August 21 at 11:29pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure If you study theology, you need to study it right, in the right context.
August 21 at 11:30pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure How does my Newman quote contradict "what I've said the whole thread." It seems to be supporting what I am saying. That theology is not universal knowledge. It may be the queen of medieval sciences, but in a modern sense, if you are going to study modern things, your Catholic mind and your sacred theology is not the capstone or crowning achievement or governess of all these things. Newman says this.
August 21 at 11:32pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure So if you study theology this way, if you use Thomas like this, like a lens through which we view all things studied, there's something wrong. Sacred theology is not this kind of lens, it is its own thing that needs to be studied in its full sense and proper terms.
August 21 at 11:41pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure So it is imperative that you study it well, so it is not overly speculative when applied to other things.
August 21 at 11:34pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It must be studied in light of its subject matter, its matter and form, because it deals with the highest and most important things.
August 21 at 11:42pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure So our Catholic theological mind need not be the lens through which we view all those other things that we study under universal knowledge. We should not pretend that it is. But for the sake of the highest and most important things, we all should study sacred theology well, properly and in the full and proper context.
August 21 at 11:39pm · Edited · Like

Joshua Kenz Petavius, as in the moon crater? Okay, I heard the name, never read him. I knew he did a lot of working with the history of theology...makes sense he would have something like a development theory.

I refrained from calling Newman a modernist, or his theory unorthodox. But I will not refrain from calling Newman, as his views are in the Grammar of Assent, as so obviously nominalist that it boggles the mind how anyone can miss that. Or how he mocks the very form of reasoning used by Aristotle and Aquinas

Quoting from the same place

"we wish to ascertain, will be found to reduce the force of the inferential method from demonstration to the mere determination of the probable. Thus, whereas (as I have already said) Inference starts with conditions, as starting with premisses, here are two reasons why, when employed upon questions of fact, it can only conclude probabilities: first, because its premisses are assumed, not proved; and secondly, because its conclusions {269} are abstract, and not concrete."

"And in like manner as regards John and Richard, when compared with one another; each is himself, and nothing else, and, though, regarded abstractedly, the two may fairly be said to have something in common, (viz., that abstract sameness which does not exist at all,) yet strictly speaking, they have nothing in common, for each of them has a vested interest in all that he himself is"

"Let units come first, and (so-called) universals second; let universals minister to units, not units be sacrificed to universals. John, Richard, and Robert are individual things, independent, incommunicable. We may find some kind of common measure between them, and we may give it the name of man, man as such, the typical {280} man, the auto-anthropos. We are justified in so doing, and in investing it with general attributes, and bestowing on it what we consider a definition. But we think we may go on to impose our definition on the whole race, and to every member of it, to the thousand Johns, Richards, and Roberts who are found in it. No; each of them is what he is, in spite of it. Not any one of them is man, as such, or coincides with the auto-anthropos. Another John is not necessarily rational, because "all men are rational," for he may be an idiot;—nor because "man is a being of progress," does the second Richard progress, for he may be a dunce;—nor, because "man is made for society," must we therefore go on to deny that the second Robert is a gipsy or a bandit, as he is found to be. There is no such thing as stereotyped humanity; it must ever be a vague, bodiless idea, because the concrete units from which it is formed are independent realities. General laws are not inviolable truths; much less are they necessary causes. Since, as a rule, men are rational, progressive, and social, there is a high probability of this rule being true in the case of a particular person; but we must know him to be sure of it."

Newman is clear that he is rejecting the very Organon of Aristotle, as far as "truth in the concrete" goes. It only touches the abstract, and he is very dismissive of that. He even calls the universal the "tyrant of the majority" using Elias as a counterexample to "all men are mortal."
August 21 at 11:39pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante Petavius= Denis Petau, SJ
August 21 at 11:48pm · Like

Joshua Kenz More, from an unpublished paper of 1868:

If abstract truths, (or what nominalits call "generalizations" from experience) are objective, (as realists would hold,) therefore they are objects- what is the object? Beautifulness, for instance- What does the mind see when it contemplates this abstraction?-is it God? if not, is it one of the Platonic everlasting ideas external to God? if not, can it be any thing at all, and are we not driven to agreement with the school of Locke and sensible experiences.

I dare say there is some simple refutation at once of the following answer, which has this only recommendation, that I have held it these forty years strenously- on the other hand I am so little versed in the controversy...

Ido not allow the existence of these abstract ideas corresponding to objective realities with Locke-but then, I do not pass over the experiences gained from the phenomena of mind so slightly, as I fancy the school of Locke is apt to do...

And more from the Grammar:

"All things in the exterior world are unit and individual, and are nothing else; but the mind not only contemplates those unit realities, as they exist, but has the gift, by an act of creation, of bringing before it abstractions and generalizations, which have no existence, no counterpart, out of it.

Now there are propositions, in which one or both of the terms are common nouns, as standing for what is abstract, general, and non-existing, such as "Man is an animal, some men are learned, an Apostle is a creation of Christianity, a line is length without breadth, to err is human, to forgive divine." These I shall call notional propositions, and the apprehension with which we infer or assent to them, notional.

And there are other propositions, which are composed of singular nouns, and of which the terms stand for {10} things external to us, unit and individual, as "Philip was the father of Alexander," "the earth goes round the sun," "the Apostles first preached to the Jews;" and these I shall call real propositions, and their apprehension real.

There are then two kinds of apprehension or interpretation to which propositions may be subjected, notional and real." (from chap 1)

And it won't take long to see he disparages "notional" That is even a common complaint among some of his fans.
August 22 at 12:06am · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman 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!
August 22 at 1:39am · Like · 4

Pater Edmund Joshua is right that Newman is not as realist as St Thomas, but he is certainly not as nominalist as analytic philosophy or empiricism. See: http://www.scribd.com/.../Newman-s-Apologia-and-the-Drama...
August 22 at 5:22am · Like · 1

Anthony Crifasi I nominate you all to pour a bucket of ice on your heads every time a comment is added to this thread.
August 22 at 7:34am · Edited · Like · 3

John Ruplinger thanks joshua. I almost opened my grammar of assent for the first time. I think Joshua and James Larson (linked above) do a sufficient job proving Newman nominalist. Its obvious in some writings and undetectable in others (a modernist tactic). If someone refutes Larson on Newman i may seriously do some work. But i have a different question for Christopher or any one. Were there any notable theologians that an arm chair pope like i might know, who were nominalists? Because like Richard Weaver i view them as termites that hollow out faith and reason entirely?
August 22 at 7:59am · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia 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?
August 22 at 8:03am · Like · 3

John Ruplinger The idea is vacuous though. So what does it matter? (Seriously the only really great piece in it is on elementary education and in light of his nominalism and many imprecise statements most ironic.)
August 22 at 8:09am · Like

John Ruplinger as to doctrine, he is modernist but one need read Pascendi for that to be understood. Nominalism undermines all doctrines.
August 22 at 8:12am · Like

John Ruplinger i will elaborate if i have time.
August 22 at 8:13am · Like

Michael Beitia 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...)
August 22 at 8:23am · Like

John Ruplinger I've read Pascendi several times over a year ago, and I am in need of a reread. I have a terrible memory. It is packed and applying it takes time. The modernist heresy (as therein defined) is the GOAT (or WOAT) in the history of the Church -- I have no doubt and if any do, they don't get or reject Pasceni imo -- and it's influence is ubiquitous. It certainly leads to apostasy step by step and so many in little or great ways are unknowingly caught up in it. (I do not condemn Newman the person, to be clear. He was suspect in his day and Cardinal Manning, esp. argued against him. Again, I rely a lot on James Larson but will do my own work if he be refuted, because the arguments are the lever imo to move all that follows).

I don't think any of the nominalist are consistent. They use or don't use logic as it suits them. If all ideas are as empty as they they think then nominalism itself is highly improbable as an idea, no?

Bacon is most forthright. In the preface to one of his works (I can't remember), he openly admits profound skepticism but declares that he will unlike the skeptics of old, be inconsistent: a self-proclaimed sophist in the old negative sense, at least he is honest. He also slips in and out of the old method of argument as he list in Novum Organon which obviously is nothing but a replacement for logic.

As to consistency again, Pius X points out the modernist have almost a double mind (and so too nominalists); they have a double truth almost. And shift from writing as nominalist, to writing as one of Faith. Or in the case of dogma, they assent to it outwardly, but I cannot understand how they assent inwardly. God knows. Tis a puzzlement.
August 22 at 9:03am · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 22 at 9:10am · Edited · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Hmmm. John, did you read the text to which Pater Edmund linked? There is a strong argument against his being a nominalist there. 
I have kept hearing that there are several texts and places of Pascendi that condemn Newman, but this more and more starting to sound like something made up. Currently, there is only slander being proffered: "He was suspect in his time," "So and so said he was Nominalist", etc. 
It seems that Joshua made some real, text-based arguments for Newman being a Nominalist. I would be interested to see his response to Pater Edmund. 

What is more, I suggested above that one engaging in an historical or practical project, might very well come off as a nominalist. 

Finally, one should be wary of saying, "This guy had bad or weak philosophy, therefore he is a modernist." We can't go that route for many reasons. One of which is that such an approach robs Pascendi of its force. 

Maybe it is time to go to the chapel and pray for Bl. Newman's intercession. Then maybe re-read his texts, perhaps with greater charity and sobriety of mind.
August 22 at 9:17am · Unlike · 2

Michael Beitia the Aeneid?? Apparently St. Ignatius didn't teach the fullness of sacred theology in accordance with the magisterium
August 22 at 9:19am · Like · 2

Nina Rachele Not that secondary sources count for much around here, but in Copleston's History of Philosophy Volume VIII he suggests that Newman's approach is more along phenomenological lines. In summarizing Newman's approach to the assent of faith he says 

"[...]we must distinguish between two types of assent. Assent given to a proposition apprehended as notional, as concerned with abstract ideas or universal terms, is notional assent, while that which is given to propositions apprehended as real, as concerned directly with things or persons, is real assent.

Now Newman takes it that things and persons, whether objects of actual experience or preented imaginatively in memory, strike the mind much more forcibly and vividly than do abstract notions. ****Real apprehension therefore is 'stronger than notional, because things, which are its objects, are confessedly more impressive and effective than notions, which are the object of notional [apprehension]. Experiences and their images strike and occupy the mind, as abstractions and their combinations so not.' ****** Similarly, although, according to Newman, all assent is alike in being unconditional, acts of assent 'are elicited more heartily and forcibly, when they are made upon real apprehension which has things for its objects, than when they are made upon real apprehension which has things for its objects, than when they are made in favour of notions and with a notional apprehension.' Further, real assent, though it does not necessarily affect conduct, tends to do so in a way in which purely notional assent does not.

Real assent is also called belief by Newman. [...]" pg. 517

Copleston's quotes are taken from the Grammar of Assent. He never really gets to the point of calling Newman, well, a member of any philosophical school in particular. The asterisked part indicates the main section in this passage that I underlined when I read it. Side question: is phenomenology a secret cover for nominalism, because now I'm confused...
August 22 at 9:28am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia 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.
August 22 at 9:46am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia so maybe he (Newman) wasn't a nominalist, but he could see it from his house....
August 22 at 9:54am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel, are you proposing that a well ordered prayer life is the only thing necessary for the study of sacred theology? What about the content and structure of the science itself?
August 22 at 10:12am · Like

Michael Beitia I can't speak for Daniel, but no, obviously
August 22 at 10:22am · Like · 1

Nina Rachele Mr. ...um... Mr. PB Scott, is there a certain list of texts you have in mind for content? I have the impression that it is basically church councils, Scripture, and the Catechism but I might be mistaken; also you may have posted a list earlier that I missed. Also for what you mean by structure my closest guess is chronological. I am just telling you what my basic impression of your ideas are, you can give a yea or nay and explain further.
August 22 at 10:29am · Edited · Unlike · 2

Nina Rachele In addition, I think Mr. Lendman's outline is consonant with Augustine's own qualifications in De Doctrina Christiana.
August 22 at 10:32am · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman Michael, I consider myself spoken for.
August 22 at 10:37am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Nina, I am liking you more and more, by the post.
August 22 at 10:37am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Rather than unpacking what Newman is known for and examining it, giving him the benefit of the doubt and trying to understand what he means, and then weighing that, and trying to understand why so many of good might tout and study and say they learn from him:

Note how we are now leaping to write him off based on where he says things that oppose a body of thought we identify with.

This is the hermeneutic of inquisition.

It is worth noting that he didn't receive a Thomistic education (not his fault - things had imploded) but this doesn't answer the question - it might be important, of course, but it might not. I'm glad it's been brought out - and it very much worth noting - but it is not a refutation.

He's not known and praised and read for his epistemology.
August 22 at 10:39am · Edited · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 22 at 10:39am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Though, Matthew, it does seem worthwhile to argue that Newman's philosophy was not a damning impediment to his theological work, specifically with regard to development. 

I am still interested in Joshua Kenz's response to Pater Edmund.
August 22 at 10:46am · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 22 at 10:50am · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman ...my name is Daniel.
August 22 at 10:51am · Like

Daniel Lendman And you argue like a politician.
August 22 at 10:51am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Me too - and also I am interested in anyone's response to Newman's kinds of development that Nina Rachele brought out.
August 22 at 10:51am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Please lay things out clearly.
August 22 at 10:51am · Like

Daniel Lendman Yeah, Nina's text is interesting.
August 22 at 10:52am · Like

Michael Beitia 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?
August 22 at 10:53am · Like

Daniel Lendman Or is it more historical?
August 22 at 10:54am · Like

Michael Beitia historical in the sense of Historicist is epistemological
August 22 at 10:54am · Like

Daniel Lendman or phenomenological?
August 22 at 10:54am · Like

John Ruplinger 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
August 22 at 10:55am · Like

John Ruplinger As to Pater Edmund's link, I read I thought the whole article, but maybe not.
August 22 at 10:56am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 22 at 10:56am · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson This is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll keep on posting forever just because this is thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my...
August 22 at 10:56am · Unlike · 4

Michael Beitia so you're saying baptize his works like Thomas did to Aristoilet?
August 22 at 10:56am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I agree, Matthew Miller
August 22 at 10:57am · Like

Daniel Lendman To both things.
August 22 at 10:57am · Like

Pater Edmund OK, so I've put all the nominations that have been posted so far into a google doc: https://docs.google.com/.../1PutRC7wDJYJ1XughyMKZ.../edit...
And I've set it so it can be edited by anyone who has the link. Please complete titles years etc. and add nominations under the correct headings. But if you add a nomination mention hear on the thread as well.
Thomas Aquinas College Theses Volume - Google Docs
docs.google.com
August 22 at 10:57am · Edited · Like · 5

John Ruplinger So Lendman, every response I've made is merely "political". I don't think you hardly read half of my responses.
August 22 at 10:59am · Like

Daniel Lendman <sigh>
August 22 at 10:59am · Like

John Ruplinger 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?
August 22 at 11:00am · Like

John Ruplinger I've tried to be fair as well as polemical, but I am quite concerned as other better thinkers than I about the nominalist position.
August 22 at 11:01am · Like

Daniel Lendman Maybe it is. I would just like to see an argument, that's all.
August 22 at 11:01am · Like

John Ruplinger THen best begin yourself, and not hurl insults maybe, no?
August 22 at 11:03am · Like

Michael Beitia 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.....
August 22 at 11:03am · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Nina Rachele "[...] 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
August 22 at 11:04am · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 22 at 11:05am · Like

Daniel Lendman Great. You say that this is absurd, John. Why?
August 22 at 11:05am · Like

Joel HF 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?
August 22 at 11:05am · Edited · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman John, that is an interesting point you make.
August 22 at 11:06am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia how about: when was "metaphysical" "mere analysis"?
August 22 at 11:06am · Like

Daniel Lendman It is not clear to me what he means by metaphysical.
August 22 at 11:07am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia he says "mere analysis of the idea contemplated"
August 22 at 11:08am · Like

Michael Beitia which to me would be quasi-nominalist..... 
August 22 at 11:08am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman In this context, he says that. I am not sure that we should put too much weight on that as an exhaustive account.
August 22 at 11:08am · Like · 1

Joel HF Also, Rebecca's thesis was the only one of which I'm aware that was awarded by TAC a higher honor than double distinction--namely publication in TAC's in house journal.
August 22 at 11:08am · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Caldwell High School 4-evah!
August 22 at 11:09am · Like

Nina Rachele The basic question right now is whether Newman's nominalism (if we can call it that) negates the legitimacy of his thesis on metaphysical developments in Christian doctrine? Is that right?
August 22 at 11:09am · Like · 2

John Ruplinger 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.
August 22 at 11:09am · Like

John Ruplinger no Nina
August 22 at 11:09am · Like

John Ruplinger It's just that every quote of Newman in the last 200 comments, does not stand up to scrutiny.
August 22 at 11:10am · Like

Nina Rachele Woops, waited too long to post ::twiddles fingers::
August 22 at 11:10am · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson So what are the requirements re theses? Double D?
August 22 at 11:11am · Like

Joel HF The comments in Pater Edmund's "Unwritten Tradition" are, I think, illuminating on just how concerning Newman's nominalism or near nominalism or confusion w/r/t Universals ought to be. I find it very comforting that Newman apparently said things like "[T]here is nothing which the Church has defined or shall define but what an Apostle, if asked, would have been fully able to answer and would have answered."

With that said, I'm no Newman scholar myself, so I'll sit back and listen to my betters.
August 22 at 11:12am · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman I am not ready to condemn Newman as a nominalist. It is not clear to me how clear he was on philosophy at all.
August 22 at 11:13am · Unlike · 4

John Ruplinger And I am ready to lift mine if someone show a good argument to the contrary. I just see that Newman opened a can of worms. I'm still trying to find Pater Edmund's link...........
August 22 at 11:15am · Like

Pater Edmund Matthew, no special requirements; they just have to be really good.
August 22 at 11:16am · Like · 2

Joel HF To be clear, I'm not condemning Newman. He appears to be at least close to nominalism at times, but again, I'm no Newman scholar, or anything scholar really!
August 22 at 11:17am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund 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.
August 22 at 11:18am · Like · 3

John Ruplinger see.................... I don't respect sacred cows of the present moment. Countless old doctors of the Church are treated like spittoons. I'm not even spitting
August 22 at 11:21am · Edited · Like

Joel HF 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.
August 22 at 11:18am · Like

Pater Edmund Oh, but you must respect sacred cows! Nostra Aetate!
August 22 at 11:19am · Like · 2

Nina Rachele 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.
August 22 at 11:19am · Like

Pater Edmund Whether one must respect sacred cows.
August 22 at 11:20am · Like · 5

Joel HF 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.
August 22 at 11:21am · Edited · Unlike · 4

Michael Beitia It seems that one should not respect sacred cows, for as the philosopher says....
August 22 at 11:22am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund Oh, Ryan Burke, I didn't include your thesis on why my thesis is wrong. So I guess that's another rule: no republicanism.
August 22 at 11:23am · Unlike · 4

Nina Rachele What can I say... old habits die hard...
August 22 at 11:25am · Like · 1

John Ruplinger see you later., perhaps. and I got that doc downloaded this time. Maybe I read a different one.
August 22 at 11:30am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Mine was a double D in defense of Beauty that was what I took to be St. Thomas wrapped at start and end with winged words. The goal was to seriously defend Beauty as transcendental-ish without falling into the sort of aesthetic flummery that is increasing prevalent today (you could see it already present and coming on strong), and without being a rationalist Neanderthal.

Mrs. Gustin said it was the best thesis she ever read - but, of course, for many people this was the equivalent to a condemnation...
August 22 at 11:32am · Edited · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I blame Pater Edmund... he totally derailed this convo
August 22 at 11:31am · Like · 1

JA Escalante https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRJ38y4Jn6k

Ferris Bueller's Day Off ( It's Over, Go Home [ Ending ])
Ferris Bueller's Day Off ( Movie Clip: " It's Over, Go Home " [ Ending ])
August 22 at 11:32am · Like · 3

Michael Beitia 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.....
August 22 at 11:34am · Like · 4

Pater Edmund But actually Ruplinger, the one Joel cited was this: http://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/.../unwritten-tradition/

Unwritten Tradition
sancrucensis.wordpress.com
Searching through the passages of Catholic teaching on the relation of Scripture and Tradition in the indispensable pdf of Denzinger-Hünermann, I was struck by how often they use some variation on ...
August 22 at 11:38am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure At Reagen National waiting for flight. I will do as best I can. For open discussion. I don't think it's necessary to do open-heart surgery. Students entering Catholic college have a basis in catechesis. They know the Church teaches truths about Faith and morals, worthy of belief. They may not know what they all are, or how they got them, but they believe the ones they know, and they want to study God. There should be an outlay of doctrine in a Catholic theology course. Not for catechetical purposes, but to lay the groundwork for theological inquiry. Doctrine is necessary for both catechetical and theological purposes.
August 22 at 11:45am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Doctrine can be taught in the Socratic method. Students may wonder where the principles of the Faith come from, what do we do with them. There are four years to study theology, so this is where to start. If you start with the principles of geometry, start with the principles of Faith. Later, moral theology and the Church's moral teaching, and a course on the Church's rhetoric, her apologetics and evangelization: from Augustine, to the Catholic reformation, to the Immaculate Conception, to JPII on Mary. More in a bit.
August 22 at 11:47am · Like

Ryan Burke 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
August 22 at 11:47am · Edited · Like · 2

Pater Edmund Tim Furlan, what was your thesis called?
August 22 at 11:48am · Like

Nina Rachele Would it be textbook based or a selection of primary sources?
August 22 at 11:52am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Tim's was called
"Brilliant, but loooong..."
August 22 at 11:53am · Like · 3

John Ruplinger yeah. 2 different links 
August 22 at 12:00pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Nina, it would be a selection of primary sources. I do not believe there is a comprehensive book on doctrine in the Great Books collection, but this material should be in a Catholic curriculum. Augustine's book on doctrine is a fantastic framework but it is a bit dated and historical in certain respects. The outlay of doctrine falls under the authorship of the magisterium of the Church, so this material should be included in the curriculum. If a College follows the magisterium then it must present her teachings as principles of theological inquiry in a positive way, as well as making good faith efforts to not run afoul of what those teaching are.
August 22 at 12:07pm · Like

Michael Beitia the ordinary, or extraordinary, or Magisterium cathedrae magistralis?
August 22 at 12:12pm · Like

Nina Rachele 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?
August 22 at 12:15pm · Like · 1

John Kunz 1200. Laughable. Not worth a discussion until this thread hits at least 1500.
August 22 at 12:16pm · Unlike · 6

Michael Beitia I'm still holding out hope for perfection: 8128
August 22 at 12:17pm · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia but I would like an answer as to which "magisterium" we're talking about. Distinguo distinguo distinguo
August 22 at 12:20pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 22 at 12:21pm · Like

Michael Beitia what if the extraordinary magisterium tells us to study the Magisterium cathedrae magistralis?
August 22 at 12:22pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele So, by extraordinary magisterium, you mean church councils? Is that correct?
August 22 at 12:24pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Pater, at page 40 and looking for the pertinant point 
August 22 at 12:25pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Pater, you owe me a decade of the rosary for slogging through your reasonable summary of the last 500 years of philosophy.
August 22 at 12:28pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson The question of "development of doctrine" is what development means, of course, and not whether or not it happens from a human point of view, or whether or not it happens in extremely messy ways and to radical extents, often in reaction to vehement disagreements regarding specific policies, etc.

We don't need Newman or other names to discuss how doctrine develops.
August 22 at 12:28pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Then we would have to do it.
August 22 at 12:28pm · Like

John Ruplinger nice. I caught that red herring.
August 22 at 12:29pm · Like

John Ruplinger newman is on trial. His books must burn 
August 22 at 12:30pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger i agree. MP. But investigating newman, helps. We can say what it is not.
August 22 at 12:32pm · Like

Michael Beitia Peterson, there you go all irresponsibly thinking you can determine if doctrine develops or not.
August 22 at 12:32pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I think what we are trying to do here is help the student develop a theological habit of mind. This involves assent to stuff we cannot know by reason. And also a sense of how the Church examines these issues as part of a theology, certainly in light of Scripture and history, and how She comes to make true statements worthy of belief. There is a theology at work here, and students in a four year Catholic college can be introduced to it in a way that is good in itself and also lays the groundwork for future studies in theology.
August 22 at 12:33pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Yeah - let's do that then. How are Newman's definitions that Nina Rachele posted wrong?
August 22 at 12:33pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia First of all, Newman's idea of metaphysical development seems to lack any metaphysics\
August 22 at 12:34pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele 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?
August 22 at 12:41pm · Edited · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau He wants the Catechism. (And no seminar method)
August 22 at 12:51pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 22 at 12:54pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Jody, that is a complete misrepresentation of my beliefs. I am puzzled and a bit shocked by your assertion. It is not true. Please see my comment immediately above.
August 22 at 1:00pm · Like

Joel HF Adding my sister, Lucy Nolan's thesis on the Brother's K.
August 22 at 1:01pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Perescott seems to be saying a whole bunch of nothing
August 22 at 1:10pm · Like · 2

Pater Edmund 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. »
August 22 at 1:12pm · Edited · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure The Catholic college needs to be positive in its understanding of the principle theological teachings of the Catholic church, and the theological basis of the Faith. The Catholic college cannot stand only on a metaphysical examination of the Faith. The best way to study theology is the Socratic method because the development of doctrine is principally a historical-dialectical process. But the principle teachings of Faith must be presented in a positive way in a Catholic college. This is necessary not only for catechesis, but also absolutely necessary for the theological inquiry and conversation.
August 22 at 1:15pm · Like

Joel HF Is there an online copy of the whole of Senior's polemic contra TAC?
August 22 at 1:18pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure You guys are really a bunch of arrogant jerks. It is necessary for the Catholic college to understand the theological basis of what we believe. This is a theological inquiry, not a philosophical one. 

You do not seem to be capable of even understanding this.
August 22 at 1:18pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick 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?
August 22 at 1:19pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure TAC is in crisis. I will let you pigs figure it out.
August 22 at 1:19pm · Like

Joel HF What a charmer!
August 22 at 1:21pm · Like · 4

Nina Rachele In an idealized theological course of study, would every class cover a different doctrine and its support? Or for example, would a council be read, and then say the full works of three or four theologians of the time who supported it? Edit: assuming each class is still taught under the seminar method
August 22 at 1:22pm · Edited · Like

Pater Edmund 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
August 22 at 1:24pm · Like · 3

Nina Rachele ^link isn't working?
August 22 at 1:25pm · Like

Nina Rachele oh, I think it's because I'm not friends with Dr. Ferrier.
August 22 at 1:26pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I'm tired of your arrogant barbs, silly jokes, idiotic statements. So many TACers are incapable... Lauren and Nina, your comments are disingenuous. Maintain the logical basis. Present Faith positively, or lose it and your audience.
August 22 at 1:26pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick You're not friends with Dr Ferrier????  oh... I'm not either...
August 22 at 1:27pm · Like

Nina Rachele ? All I've been doing is asking questions.
August 22 at 1:27pm · Like · 3

Nina Rachele No, I never had him as a tutor unfortunately...think I had him for an all-school once maybe...
August 22 at 1:28pm · Like

Pater Edmund Joel HF, no free version, but it's on Kindle.
August 22 at 1:28pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Ok. I have refused to engage you, O Foolish Troll, but you cross the line when you insult women. Go away, Scott. Now.
August 22 at 1:29pm · Edited · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman If you were here I would punch you. Hard. And I am really good at punching.
August 22 at 1:30pm · Unlike · 3

Nina Rachele 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.
August 22 at 1:30pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure There's no such thing as an ideal theological course. Are you actually asking if only one doctrine would be covered per class in an undergraduate theology class? Is this a serious question?
August 22 at 1:31pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick 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 .
August 22 at 1:32pm · Like

Nina Rachele Well, yes. I assumed we were discussing what the ideal theological course was and why TAC did not look like that ideal.
August 22 at 1:32pm · Edited · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Nina, I would not waste your time. He is not interested in real discourse. I know.
August 22 at 1:32pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Nina, I do think I have been wasting my time discussing this with you.
August 22 at 1:32pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund 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.
August 22 at 1:33pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Like I said. He is sniveling prig.
August 22 at 1:33pm · Like

Pater Edmund 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
August 22 at 1:33pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele Well, I for my part have learned quite a bit.
August 22 at 1:33pm · Like · 3

Nina Rachele ^good, I can read that one
August 22 at 1:34pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Count your blessings, John.
August 22 at 1:34pm · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau Wear it like a badge of honour John
August 22 at 1:34pm · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick Just what I was thinking Nina!
August 22 at 1:34pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman And Nina, those other places will witness to my patience and forbearance with regard to the troll.
August 22 at 1:34pm · Like

Pater Edmund As I said above, I will always be grateful to the Peregrine for provoking these discussions.
August 22 at 1:35pm · Like · 3

Nina Rachele Can we get back to Newman now, please?
August 22 at 1:35pm · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau Pater Edmund is dragging up old memories there with the Ferrier thread. But yes, we had some good discoveries even then.
August 22 at 1:36pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Befriend Richard Delahide Ferrier all - and read that note and the comments.
August 22 at 1:36pm · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure Does anyone agree with me that an inquiry of sacred theology is different than a metaphysical inquiry? Does anyone agree that a theological inquiry relates intrinsically to what the Church promulgates as worthy of belief? Does anyone agree with me that this is not mere catechesis? Does anyone agree that Catholic theology in a Catholic college should include this? does anyone maintain that TAC does this? If, explain how. Please, no more idiocy.
August 22 at 1:36pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Sadly, Pater Edmund, Scott's credibility is bankrupt. His initial questions are interesting and important. It is the follow-up that is the problem.
August 22 at 1:39pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure In a Catholic college, when you teach theology, you need a positive presentation of the doctrines of the Faith, and the theological basis of these doctrines or principles. This is how theology is taught in most Catholic colleges. You could do this easily at TAC, in seminar. This is not advocacy against the seminar method, or for catechesis.

Do you see this?

Is this "worthy of discourse" for you?
August 22 at 1:42pm · Like

Joel HF 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.
August 22 at 1:48pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele Pater Edmund thank you for linking that Ferrier thread, it is very interesting so far...
August 22 at 1:49pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Joel, you're a jerk. Best of luck to you arrogant Catholics from TAC.
August 22 at 1:53pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick I love how barely making it through the program lumps me with all the brilliant minds that came out of TAC. How long do you have to attend for this label to be present? (Obviously this is not a serious question, but merely a musing)
August 22 at 1:56pm · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Your arrogance is proof of your lack of theological formation.
August 22 at 1:57pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Brilliant minds?
August 22 at 1:58pm · Like

Joel HF 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?
August 22 at 1:59pm · Edited · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Dr. Waldstein came to mind when I made that comment.
August 22 at 2:01pm · Like

Michael Beitia I still have honest questions about what "theological inquiry" is. and "theological basis" and "theological principles"

Help me out Perescottgrinebonawienventureburg
August 22 at 2:02pm · Like · 2

Nina Rachele Need to get ready for work... I expect plenty of new insights about Newman when I get back here....
August 22 at 2:04pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I'm at work. I call it "multi-trolling"
August 22 at 2:09pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia except I always come back to the same thing: I need to know what sort of principles, inquiry and basis is (theologically speaking) in order that I can honestly answer (to the best of my abilities) whatever the hell Scott is talking about.
August 22 at 2:21pm · Like · 1

Joel HF 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."
August 22 at 2:30pm · Edited · Like · 12

Claire Keeler YAY! Stefon lives!
August 22 at 2:32pm · Edited · Like · 1

Claire Keeler reverse trolling! LOL! but there should be some mention of midgets doing something unseemly
August 22 at 2:33pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia hey! I'm short, but not that short!
August 22 at 2:43pm · Like · 1

Claire Keeler "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"
August 22 at 2:46pm · Like · 2

Joel HF "A magesteri-midget? It's that thing, where you get a midget to follow you around and shout abuse about how you don't follow the true magesterium."
August 22 at 2:53pm · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Thank you the kind-hearted rebuke Joel. I fell into the trap of taking a troll seriously.
August 22 at 3:08pm · Like · 1

Sean Plus Anne Schniederjan I know what this thread needs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEKZJp-x-Dc

Jay Ferguson ~ Thunder Island
a song of Jay's i like made video because was no good studio version on video ...enjoy
August 22 at 3:22pm · Like

Michael Beitia 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.
August 22 at 3:29pm · Edited · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure TAC is a heresy factory. It is named after Saint Thomas Aquinas, and claims to teach under the Magisterium, but is confused about sacred theology, how you teach it, if you should teach it, what it is, and what it's for, etc. It replaces metaphysics and natural theology with sacred theology, and its alum teach things like reason enlightens faith. This is formal and material heresy.
August 22 at 5:12pm · Like

Michael Beitia I wish you would be more clear, and less pugnacious.
August 22 at 5:13pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson "TAC is a heresy factory"=best quote of the week.
August 22 at 5:20pm · Unlike · 8

Lauren Ogrodnick A lot of the class of 2014 wrote on Contemplation this year! Wow! I didn't notice that at graduation!
August 22 at 5:21pm · Like · 1

Bekah Sims Andrews "TAC is a heresy factory"
*******************************
Just because everyone discovers in Sophomore year that they are semi-pelagian...
August 22 at 5:28pm · Unlike · 6

Anthony Crifasi I'm pouring a bucket of ice on my own head just for that quote alone.
August 22 at 5:41pm · Like · 4

Brian Gerrity This conversation thread is making my head spin, probably because every time I see it there are around 200 additional comments.
August 22 at 5:52pm · Like · 3

Brian Gerrity 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.
August 22 at 5:55pm · Like · 5

Brian Gerrity The only questionable comment I can recall was the blue book stating that graduating from the college was a sign of predestination. Hardly qualifies the college as a heresy factory.
August 22 at 6:27pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia Kurt, I have to thank Christendom College. Erin visited there when she was in high school.
August 22 at 6:35pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger if TAC is a heresy factory, why am i alone excommunicated?
August 22 at 7:19pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Heresy open bar?
August 22 at 8:51pm · Like · 3

Jason Van Boom Heresy tapas bar.
August 22 at 9:05pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia heresy salad bar
August 22 at 9:11pm · Like · 4

Catherine Ryland What does it say about our moral sense that the only thesis on ethics in the proposed theses doc is about torture, and not contra torture either?
August 22 at 9:12pm · Edited · Like · 5

Jason Van Boom 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!
August 22 at 9:16pm · Like · 4

Jody Haaf Garneau Is the "heresy factory" a quote from the Blue Book? (or is this a new addition?)
August 22 at 9:27pm · Like · 1

Rebecca Bratten Weiss Well, TAC grads create longer threads than FUS grads do....

But the FUS threads are dirtier.
August 22 at 9:36pm · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson Catherine Ryland: Modernist!
August 22 at 9:43pm · Like · 2

Susan Peterson 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?
August 22 at 9:48pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger well. I finisned pater's mostly fine piece and the chapter on illative sense. Lots to say ....
August 22 at 9:48pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson 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...
August 22 at 9:49pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson It would be "selling out to do a thesis on Ethics. Still, many of these seem related, at least.
August 22 at 9:50pm · Like

John Ruplinger hope it helps. Later...
August 22 at 9:51pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Ethics is boring...  Well actually I think it was just more intuitive than motion for me. . .
August 22 at 9:53pm · Unlike · 2

Joshua Kenz 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
August 22 at 9:57pm · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia are we back to Newman?
August 22 at 10:03pm · Edited · Like · 3

Joshua Kenz "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
August 22 at 10:21pm · Like · 2

Joshua Kenz Mr. Beitia, sorry, after less than a full night sleep and then a long day of work, I see Lendman asked for my response to Pater Edmund's link. So I obliged in spite of the intervening comments.
August 22 at 10:22pm · Like · 3

Joshua Kenz 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....
August 22 at 10:28pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger I have a number of observations about Pater Edmund's thesis (130 pages). It's a worthwhile read. In particular, my thesis that nominalism invites immanentism, he seems to confirm. It's only when he enters into Newman's epitstemology and development of doctrine (p. 84) that I start to disagree.

I second Joshua's comment about Newman's "Aristotelian" leanings. Just because Newman claims to be Aristotelian (p. 85) doesn't make it so: that would mean Ayn Rand is Aristotelian also.

There is a mistake in Pater's interpretation of Newman on p. 91 in the confused notion of real vs. notional apprehension. The boy's apprehension is notional when reading the poet's real apprehension. He may change it elsewhere.
August 22 at 10:47pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger 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.
August 22 at 11:05pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger What is clear beyond doubt is that his is a very precisely crafted esoteric work, and I recommend a careful reading of chapter nine on illative sense. Now that I see what he is doing in that chapter the rest will be clearer. The chapter itself really almost stands entirely on its own.
August 22 at 10:51pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 22 at 10:52pm · Like

John Ruplinger You've been warned. There be dark waters there.
August 22 at 10:52pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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")
August 22 at 10:55pm · Like

Joshua Kenz To be honest it was more the tediousness of the work than any position he took that turned me off from Newman....I read it before going to TAC too....I found it so tedious, I decided to read Aristotle and found him crystal clear in comparison...it gave me a leg up when I later went to TAC...

Mr. Ruplinger has more patience than I to be digging back into the text that much!
August 22 at 10:57pm · Like · 3

John Ruplinger 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.
August 22 at 10:58pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger LIS, ch. 9 to me is a bit clearer. I can say a lot about if anyone is interested. I certainly haven't mined everything there, but Newman has a reason for everything he writes. It's just a matter of unraveling all the apparent contradictions and figuring out what he's getting at.
August 22 at 10:59pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger 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 
August 22 at 11:38pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger The first section on "Sanction" of illative sense: as it turns out is one's own self. Man is his own sanction, idiosyncratic man, and none else. Thus sanction is the "authority" of one's assumptions. Nothing outside himself. He begins in almost Cartesian fashion. But let the reader decide for himself what Newman says. This section proceeds strangely with several apparent contradictory sentences like “desire to change laws which are identical with myself.” Indeed, it seems that he subtly reasserting Hobbesian nature and right. Again he says of human nature, “it is his gift to be the creator of his own sufficiency; and to be emphatically self-made.” Newman doesn't spare here an idle word, even the first use of “his”.
August 22 at 11:13pm · Edited · Like · 1

John Ruplinger ...... 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.
August 22 at 11:18pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger Sections two and three are even more interesting.
August 22 at 11:20pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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
August 22 at 11:28pm · Edited · Like · 1

JA Escalante Eric Hutchinson, fyi
August 22 at 11:42pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 22 at 11:42pm · Like

JA Escalante pm me too please
August 22 at 11:43pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger And don't get me wrong. I really appreciate what Pater Edmund wrote. It's very good.
August 22 at 11:44pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Thank you Joshua for obliging me. Also, thank you, John for your thorough responses. Your position on Newman is now clear to my mind, and the texts you reference are compelling.
August 23 at 2:23am · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 23 at 2:35am · Unlike · 8

Tom Sundaram There are those who, though misunderstanding something, seek the honest truth about it. Then there are those who, though convinced something is wrong, abide by the higher law of devotion to the truth when they are answered. Finally, there are those who, though unable to understand someone else who seemingly disagrees with them, will at least respect the goodness of their intentions. These three enable discussion.

But there is a fourth sort of person that, assuming the other person is wrong for reasons other than what they say or believe, or even their tone, reasons inaccessible by discussion. To these people attempts to argue are not attempts to discuss, but to foment enmity against an opponent. Scott is such a person on this topic, his only topic, and it is not charity to enable the fomenting of schism by granting it a direct response or entertaining it as a serious discussion. If this thread should persist it is in spite of Scott, not because of him.
August 23 at 4:03am · Like · 4

Tom Sundaram Edit: first sentence, second paragraph: "...inaccessible by discussion, seeks to undermine some 'enemy' point."
August 23 at 4:05am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund I agree with Joshua Kenz on the faults of my Newman paper; my linking it here bordered on trolling. All the greater is my admiration for John Ruplinger plowing through the whole thing! I owe you more than a decade, sir; I'm offering Mass for your intentions.
August 23 at 5:22am · Like · 5

Pater Edmund 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
August 23 at 5:53am · Like · 2

Jason Van Boom John Ruplinger PM me too, please.
August 23 at 7:47am · Like · 1

John Ruplinger on the road 7 hours. And a barn dance later. So til tomorrow. And thanks pater
August 23 at 11:03am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia uh oh.... this is dangerously close to petering out
August 23 at 11:11am · Like

Daniel Lendman hmm... Perhaps I should say something controversial.
August 23 at 11:16am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I'll go ahead and say that with the exception of junior and (some) senior year, lab at TAC is a waste. It could be structured so much better. But I'm probably one of like three people who actually care about lab
August 23 at 11:20am · Like

John Ruplinger dont worry. I am holding back on my nuclear option should be good for another 1000 comments 
August 23 at 11:36am · Like · 2

John Ruplinger neverendin, baby.
August 23 at 11:38am · Like · 1

Joel HF '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.
August 23 at 11:42am · Edited · Like · 3

Joel HF Fabre is overrated. There I said it.
August 23 at 11:41am · Edited · Like · 3

Liam Collins Dude, I loved Fabre! I found some of those readings to be amongst the most leisurely, wonderful, contemplative readings of the whole four years.
August 23 at 11:46am · Unlike · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick Freshman year lab was great! And really helped with giving people experience of the natural world before moving into DeAnima!
August 23 at 11:47am · Like · 1

Joel HF Freshman lab is Micky Mouse pablum. And we take, what, 12 classes of fabre to demonstrate that insects aren't intelligent? Snore.
August 23 at 11:51am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland I'll try to defend Freshman year lab too. If you're going to be (or are) a philosopher, or a natural scientist, or a theologian, or really anything, you need to learn from experience the importance of observation and reality. Then when you read Goethe or Harvey or Lavoisier or articles on wave theory or really anyone at all later on, you know from your own experience that they are basing their theories and work on careful observation. It's the difference between knowing something and KNOWING SOMETHING, just as you can know someone and know your spouse in entirely different ways. 

You are not stuck in your head with purely intellectual arguments forever and you see the relation between the "visible things of creation" and the theological treatises you are studying when you are forced to go outside to watch bees and ants or trap horrid beetles. You are thrilled by seeing Rev. Roy Axel Coats pop by your classroom window with a butterfly net and a jar of insects. 
You overcome whatever fear of arthropods you might have had and realize that the smallest, ugliest things of this world are part of the divine Dantean dance of love that moves the stars. 

Also I know that freshman lab, particularly the understanding of teleology, beginning to see that things act for an end rather than being an arbitrary collection of accidents, was one key part in the beginning of my friend's conversion post-TAC.
August 23 at 12:02pm · Edited · Unlike · 6

Joel HF 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.
August 23 at 12:11pm · Edited · Like · 5

JA Escalante Catherine Ryland, that might be true of some Platonic Idea of freshman lab; I don't know anyone whose experience was much like that though. And I came to TAC *wanting* that kind of thing (I had a strong background in natural history, and was much influenced by Goethe's approach to natural science)
August 23 at 12:15pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante 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
August 23 at 12:18pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland My classmates tasted Substance D! (Wasn't that Pater Edmund?) And I think that was soph year.
August 23 at 12:19pm · Edited · Like · 3

JA Escalante !!!
August 23 at 12:19pm · Like

JA Escalante talk about "KNOWING SOMETHING"
August 23 at 12:19pm · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland 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.
August 23 at 12:40pm · Edited · Like · 2

JA Escalante I agree, in principle. And honestly TAC should pay you to use these reveries in the Admissions packets
August 23 at 12:47pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante now I'm wondering if Substance D gave Pater Edmund superpowers
August 23 at 12:48pm · Like · 6

Catherine Ryland Yes! Or perhaps he had brain cells to spare... 
I have plenty of things to tell the Admissions office and not all so cheerful. (To their credit, they warned me I needed more math, but I was too sanguine or too stubborn to believe just how much more I needed.) I've often said I'd like to start a PTACSD support group, since I've seen how many severely depressed people come out of there. Can't quite figure out why. 
The campus policy "don't date until 2nd semester Junior Year" advice was terrible, and I can't believe I went along with it. What they really needed to say was "just go out to coffee with everyone unless you don't want to. Don't worry about marriage and don't be serious at all at first, and if you'd rather not go out for coffee then don't." Some of us can't seem to figure this out on our own.
I have other criticisms too.
August 23 at 1:16pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 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).
August 23 at 1:04pm · Like

Michael Beitia because we all know that matter is continuous and infinitely divisible, what's the point of studying "atom" and their discreteness, which is patently false, right? Lab before lunch, Aristotle's Physics with Berquist after lunch.... blah
August 23 at 1:07pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante Paul Babcock, what was it you said to Mr Berquist in that lab discussion? "It's not a #!**!@ fiction!!" ?
August 23 at 1:09pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante something like that
August 23 at 1:09pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante (re: atoms)
August 23 at 1:09pm · Like · 1

Liam Collins Regarding PTACD, it took me a full year to surf my way back to sanity. (Not to mention going home to a very loving family.) Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for my experience there. But I am intrigued by this too.
August 23 at 1:11pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Liam, this thread is really good evidence that "surfing your way back to sanity" isn't possible
August 23 at 1:17pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Joel, they are changing the Lab tutorial now to include more discussion about evolution and Darwin, etc. I think electro-magnetism is all but out. Einstein is going to be moved to Senior Math (where he, apparently, was originally placed).
August 23 at 1:18pm · Like

Michael Beitia Mendel was in seminar when I went there. They moved him to freshman lab when I was a junior
August 23 at 1:19pm · Like

Pater Edmund They need to cut the SJC measurement manual out of the program entirely.
August 23 at 1:20pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia YES!
and phlogiston
August 23 at 1:20pm · Like

Catherine Ryland You guys missed the whole point.
August 23 at 1:21pm · Unlike · 1

Daniel Lendman ...I like thinking about measures...
August 23 at 1:21pm · Unlike · 1

Pater Edmund But Pascal on the weight of the air is awesome.
August 23 at 1:21pm · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman ...and phlogiston.
August 23 at 1:21pm · Like

Pater Edmund What is the point of the measurement manual Catherine?
August 23 at 1:21pm · Like

Michael Beitia F*ck phlogiston
August 23 at 1:21pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland TAC wouldn't be TAC without phlogiston.
August 23 at 1:21pm · Like · 4

Pater Edmund I agree with Catherine about the bug collection and Fabre though.
August 23 at 1:22pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia TAC wouldn't be TAC without non-being!?
August 23 at 1:22pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund But I'm against doing Darwin Freshman year because one hasn't done the Physics and the De Anima yet.
August 23 at 1:22pm · Unlike · 5

Catherine Ryland This is what I have come to later in life re: measurement. He who measures, wins.
August 23 at 1:22pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 23 at 1:23pm · Unlike · 3

Catherine Ryland re: Darwin: there's no problem reading it and remembering in the context of what you you learned freshman year.
August 23 at 1:25pm · Edited · Like

Liam Collins I didn't surf *the web* back to sanity, Beitia!
August 23 at 1:23pm · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland Yes, Daniel, I agree completely.
August 23 at 1:23pm · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland You can't have scientific inquiry (of a natural sort) without hefty doses of measurement. Look at all the astronomers.
August 23 at 1:24pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Liam, the continuation of the thread is a strong argument that sanity is out the window. It caught fire because of phlogiston, and black bile, and all my messed up humours.
August 23 at 1:25pm · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland ^^ 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.)
August 23 at 1:26pm · Edited · Like · 3

Michael Beitia waiting for a /sarc
August 23 at 1:26pm · Like

Pater Edmund I think they should let the Lab program come full circle so that second semester of senior year is Mendel and Darwin and genetics.
August 23 at 1:26pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Yes! I love it.
August 23 at 1:27pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund Second semester of Freshman year could be Pascal on weight of air etc.
August 23 at 1:27pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Nah, they should read Sir James Jeans, or Heisenberg on the philosophy of science
August 23 at 1:27pm · Like

Michael Beitia Or Poincare on Science and Method
August 23 at 1:27pm · Like

John Ruplinger heresy petri dish + substance D = ptacd troll . . . AKA . . .
August 23 at 1:27pm · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Pater Edmund, I think that is the new plan. Or something like that.
August 23 at 1:28pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Could we all just take a moment and go back to that comment where Catherine said that she agreed with me completely?
August 23 at 1:28pm · Like · 4

Pater Edmund That way Galilleo could be read second semester of Sophomore year, which would be fitting.
August 23 at 1:28pm · Like · 2

Joel HF Electro magnetism was a big fav of mine, so I'm sad to see it go. I wish they could go all the way and tackle quatuum mechanics.
August 23 at 1:30pm · Edited · Like · 5

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 23 at 1:32pm · Edited · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Just as long as they don't get rid of the light experiments. .
August 23 at 1:32pm · Like · 1

Joel HF Also how do you do Einstein without electro magnetism? Einstein is also all about measurement, but unlike freshman measurement manual, reading him is worthwhile.
August 23 at 1:32pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Joel, I liked electro-magnetism as well. There just isn't enough time.
August 23 at 1:32pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante they dont do Goethe's light experiments, which is a huge fail
August 23 at 1:32pm · Like · 2

Pater Edmund They should do Adolf Portmann Freshman year with the Fabre.
August 23 at 1:33pm · Like

JA Escalante ^absolutely! and Uexkull
August 23 at 1:34pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland If anyone did not get the point of Soph lab you should read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Periodic.../dp/188393771X

The Mystery of the Periodic Table (Living History Library)
www.amazon.com
Leads the reader on a delightful and absorbing journey through the ages, on the trail of the elements of the Periodic Table as we know them today. He introduces the young reader to people like Von Helmont, Boyle, Stahl, Priestly, Cavendish, Lavoisier, and many others, all incredibly diverse in pe...
August 23 at 1:34pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante Pater I used to push for Portmann. To no avail
August 23 at 1:34pm · Like · 4

Catherine Ryland I had Berquist too and everyone fell asleep but I thought Soph lab was crucial. Perhaps you could distill it into a shorter form. 

You're basically learning the development of the scientific method in a hands-on way.
August 23 at 1:35pm · Edited · Unlike · 3

Pater Edmund At Wyoming Catholic College they read Fisher's “Mathematics of a Lady Tasting Tea”; no idea what that is, but it sounds awsome.
August 23 at 1:35pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante also, they need botanical drawing in freshman lab and should hire Domiane to teach it
August 23 at 1:36pm · Like · 3

Joel HF Dr. Kaiser also designed freshman lab, which could easily be done in 1 semester. I'll reserve judgment.
August 23 at 1:36pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland This? 
http://gymportalen.dk/.../Projekt9_1...
August 23 at 1:37pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante that looks great! TAC could also easily read Goethe on the nature and kinds of experiment, to great effect
August 23 at 1:38pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Goethe on nature/science is a change I'd actually agree with.
August 23 at 1:39pm · Like · 1

Joel HF I was wiser than I knew when I first said that this was the best FB thread ever.
August 23 at 1:39pm · Like · 4

Pater Edmund Big Angry Daniel: people would still think about measurement without the torture of the Manual.
August 23 at 1:39pm · Like · 3

Pater Edmund It's not "THE GREAT MANUALS method"
August 23 at 1:40pm · Like · 5

Catherine Ryland I'm against torture.
August 23 at 1:40pm · Like · 5

JA Escalante HAHAHAHA
August 23 at 1:40pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante well then let's all admit that Euclid could be taught differently.
August 23 at 1:40pm · Like

JA Escalante just sayin'
August 23 at 1:41pm · Like

Catherine Ryland You're supposed to think about precision of measurement vs. accuracy of measurement. The more precise you are, the less accurate you have the potential to be.
August 23 at 1:41pm · Edited · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson BLASPHEMER
August 23 at 1:41pm · Like · 4

Joel HF And yeah, sophomore lab 2nd semester is the one place we really expirience the scientific method.
August 23 at 1:41pm · Like

JA Escalante yep I went there
August 23 at 1:41pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund JA: WHAT!?!
August 23 at 1:41pm · Like

JA Escalante just sayin'
August 23 at 1:42pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Euclid WAS taught differently. Depending on the tutor...
August 23 at 1:42pm · Edited · Like · 4

JA Escalante literally LOL
August 23 at 1:42pm · Like

JA Escalante I had Euclid....Prussian-style. I'll leave it at that
August 23 at 1:42pm · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson I am now firmly on the side of the Syllabus of Errors, which I believe condemns the foul words recently uttered by JA Escalante.
August 23 at 1:43pm · Like · 5

Pater Edmund In the clerico-fascist empire that I will establish one of these days Calvinists who think that Euclid ought to be taught in any other way than THE WAY, will be burned first.
August 23 at 1:43pm · Edited · Like · 6

Catherine Ryland 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.
August 23 at 1:45pm · Edited · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland ^^ You would.
August 23 at 1:44pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 23 at 1:44pm · Edited · Like · 3

Joel HF How would you teach Euclid, Escalante?
August 23 at 1:45pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund I now I'm going to go pray Compline: sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram.
August 23 at 1:45pm · Like · 4

JA Escalante Matthew this is just Stockholm Syndrome you've got
August 23 at 1:45pm · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland People who think people should be burned at the stake should be burned at the stake.
August 23 at 1:46pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson They got to me. You discovered wherein they got to me. I too was taken captive by...a German sort of Euclid
August 23 at 1:46pm · Like · 4

JA Escalante ^our experience was identical, as you know
August 23 at 1:47pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante which is why I expect more revolutionary bravery from you on this point
August 23 at 1:47pm · Like

JA Escalante Pater, for the record, Catherine just expressed a cardinal maxim of my political theology
August 23 at 1:48pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I had Hartmann. It was perfect. I got to teach it
August 23 at 1:48pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante ah, one of TAC's great sins...the exile of Hartmann
August 23 at 1:49pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia ^my thesis advisor, fwiw
August 23 at 1:50pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante and Joel: I would make it less an exercise in high-pressure rote memorization, and much more one of leisurely construction and contemplation
August 23 at 1:50pm · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Joel HF, quit being all ecumenical and asking questions n' stuff.
August 23 at 1:50pm · Edited · Unlike · 4

Joel HF I didn't memorize a single prop. And I demonstrated them just fine. Rote memorization is not part of the TAC way.
August 23 at 1:51pm · Unlike · 4

JA Escalante "no true Scotsman"
August 23 at 1:52pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 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)
August 23 at 1:52pm · Unlike · 3

Daniel Lendman I didn't learn to demonstrate props until Apollonius. It was then that I realized that it was not about memorization.
August 23 at 1:53pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante it certainly shouldn't be
August 23 at 1:53pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia When assisting, Socratically, someone stuck at the board, I would always ask "what do you know" what have we learned before, most people can figure it out without too much help
August 23 at 1:54pm · Like · 3

Joel HF Michael Beitia, I too often discovered variations at the board.
August 23 at 1:54pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia the first prop I demonstrated started a Sh*tstorm because I used different letters than the text. I used "hotdog" "smiley face" and "x" after that.
August 23 at 1:55pm · Like · 2

Joel HF JA Escalante don't you mean "no true Prussian woman?" 
August 23 at 1:55pm · Edited · Like · 4

JA Escalante maybe
August 23 at 1:56pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia But I rarely was allowed to demonstrate anything
August 23 at 1:56pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Joel, you were by no means the measure or exemplar for how a typical person should do props. As I recall, Joel, you would often first study props in the minutes before class sophomore year, and then go to the board and demonstrate them marvelously, though often with variation. It was watching you that cued me into the fact that I was doing things wrongly.
August 23 at 1:57pm · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland Peter Fry would do that too. So amazing and depressing.
August 23 at 1:58pm · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Only he wouldn't study them at all.
August 23 at 1:58pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante I mostly just knocked the table with my knee so the spun bottle would point at some other wretch
August 23 at 1:58pm · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland He would just read the first line and demonstrate them his own way.
August 23 at 1:58pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 23 at 1:59pm · Like · 5

Joel HF Peter Fry mathematical ability >>>>my mathematical ability
August 23 at 1:59pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I can personally recommend Whistle Pig.
August 23 at 2:00pm · Like · 1

Joel HF Daniel Lendman our sophomore section was so insanely good. I learned more that year in section than any other year.
August 23 at 2:02pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman True. True. As did, I.
August 23 at 2:02pm · Like · 1

Joel HF Suddenly I miss TAC.
August 23 at 2:04pm · Unlike · 4

Catherine Ryland Stockholm Syndrome for sure.
August 23 at 2:04pm · Like · 5

Joel HF Bwahaha!
August 23 at 2:05pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland 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.)
August 23 at 2:12pm · Edited · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson JA Escalante - sat right next the corner too, trying to minimize the potential angle of doom.
August 23 at 2:12pm · Like · 2

Joel HF 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.
August 23 at 2:13pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Not quite sure why.
August 23 at 2:14pm · Edited · Like

JA Escalante 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
August 23 at 2:15pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante though honestly I was elated to bolt to Berkeley after sophomore year
August 23 at 2:16pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Which is absolutely untrue, that there isn't much truth or fellowship "outside".
August 23 at 2:16pm · Like · 2

Joel HF It wasn't the leaving that depressed me!
August 23 at 2:16pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante 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
August 23 at 2:17pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Me either, I was thrilled to graduate, though I enjoyed being there too, in a mixed way (like everything is mixed).
August 23 at 2:17pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I heard a great quote about grad school the other day "where you forgo current income to forgo future income..."
August 23 at 2:18pm · Unlike · 2

Joel HF I burnt out senior year, and was glad to get going, though sad to leave friends. Though as Daniel Lendman says, I was hardly a model or exemplar student.
August 23 at 2:20pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman I meant that in the best possible way, Joel!!!
August 23 at 2:23pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland We need to have mini-TAC seminars all over the country (well world, really). With brunch and whiskey. I have Stockholm Syndrome too.
August 23 at 2:25pm · Edited · Like · 3

Joel HF 
August 23 at 2:26pm · Like

JA Escalante Catherine the Johnnies do that; it always struck me as odd that TACers don't. But I think that's partly because of the TAC myth that the experience can't happen outside its walls
August 23 at 2:29pm · Edited · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland That's funny, I didn't run into that particular brand of TACism.
August 23 at 2:31pm · Edited · Like · 1

JA Escalante it was rampant when I was there...if you talked to faculty about grad school, they would start by shrugging and sighing with a sort of despair
August 23 at 2:31pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Catherine Ryland: https://docs.google.com/.../1xBzrZlfGzxi5e4vjhulzIZL.../edit
Education Without Credentials - Google Docs
docs.google.com
August 23 at 2:32pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I can imagine one thing -- you certainly can't recreate the experience of having four years to discuss everything. If you have brunch or a weekend, it ends too soon and that can be a little dampening.
August 23 at 2:32pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Matthew, that sounds wonderful.
August 23 at 2:34pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson Many programs do something similar. I've given up hope on TAC per se (they should do what George does via the James Madison program in cities across the country with Princeton alumni for sheer fundraising proposes alone) but I think there is a lot of room in this space - as many people are starving for something like this - and not just TACers.

By doing it regularly - like going to a gym or club - one can satisfy the appetites over time.

Examples abound, from Clubs in English mining towns to the lyceums in Lincoln's America.

There is no reason we can't do this.
August 23 at 2:36pm · Like · 4

Henry Zepeda 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.
August 23 at 2:37pm · Like · 6

Domiane Forte JA Escalante: I'm visiting WCC right now, dreaming about applying for position and moving to Lander to develop just that kind of artistic/naturalist program.
August 23 at 2:39pm · Like · 5

JA Escalante What Henry Zepeda said
August 23 at 2:40pm · Like · 3

Henry Zepeda I think St. Mary's Integral Program does a bit better with the observational side of astronomy, but I'm not quite sure what they do. Joe Zepeda, do you guys have astronomical observations as part of Freshman year lab/science?
August 23 at 2:45pm · Like

Joel HF Henry Zepeda don't most students get that anyways while drinking heavily in the wood? It might be a bit redundant. 
August 23 at 2:46pm · Edited · Like · 4

JA Escalante but the stars are spinning unnaturally in that circumstance
August 23 at 2:47pm · Like · 2

Henry Zepeda ??
August 23 at 2:48pm · Like

JA Escalante in the circumstance Joel mentions
August 23 at 2:48pm · Like

Henry Zepeda In what circumstance?
August 23 at 2:48pm · Like

Henry Zepeda The neverending threat moves too fast for me!
August 23 at 2:49pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante "drinking heavily in the woods"
August 23 at 2:49pm · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson ^first chapter of my autobiography
August 23 at 3:08pm · Like · 5

John Ashman Has this thread won the Internet yet?
August 23 at 3:20pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante "In the beginning of life, in a dark wood drinking heavily...."
August 23 at 3:23pm · Like · 4

Thomas Hall I feel so privileged to have played a small role in this. Do all of us get a check or something?
August 23 at 3:23pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger yeah. I believe peregrine gave your name a check on his list of suspected heretics.
August 23 at 3:30pm · Like · 1

Thomas Hall *Suspected*? That's all? I have failed.
August 23 at 3:30pm · Like

John Ruplinger i am on the soon to be burned. So idk.
August 23 at 3:33pm · Like · 3

Thomas Hall When they burn me I hope they use cedar. I love the smell of cedar.
August 23 at 3:34pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger all right. I need to stop being mean. Unjust excommunication has no merit this way.
August 23 at 3:44pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 23 at 5:43pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure How many TAC students does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Just one, but it takes a very long time. You have to wait till senior year, then the student can just hold the light bulb over his head, while the entire Cosmos revolves around him.
August 23 at 5:50pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure How many Christendom students does it take to change a light bulb?
August 23 at 5:51pm · Like

Catherine Ryland How many? 
August 23 at 5:59pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 23 at 6:10pm · Edited · Like

Emily Norppa Also: How many TACers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: It depends.
August 23 at 7:07pm · Unlike · 5

Catherine Ryland "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.
August 23 at 7:32pm · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Interesting statement from St. Thomas Aquinas against the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Relying on Aristotle's anotion of ensoulment, Thomas asserts: “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ..” Thomas maintained: “The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed from it before her birth from the womb” (III, 27, 2, ad2). 

In the 14th C, the Franciscans opposed the Dominicans by supporting the Immaculata. At the Council of Basil, the Church declared that Mary was not included in the doctrine on original sin.
August 23 at 7:34pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 23 at 7:36pm · Like

Catherine Ryland "I think this shows the need for assent in sacred theology." No problem there.
August 23 at 7:37pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 23 at 7:39pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Catherine, "doctrinaire theology" I think is what Liberals say. It is baseless. They see it as dead and lifeless. Indeed, there version of it is. But in the true sense, we are just talking about first principles, when we talk about dogmas, and assent to first principles by faith, not because they are self-evident to the reason, but by grace and assenr. We depart from first principles as we launch into theological inquiry, in the same way that medieval science departs from self evident first principles. Or we can arrive at dogma, through an examination of the theological debate which led to the dogma. The Immaculate Conception for example. I do not see how anyone could see this is doctrinaire or anything other than animated and life+giving.
August 23 at 7:45pm · Like

Michael Beitia Perescott, you still haven't defined what YOU mean by sacred theology
August 23 at 7:45pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Q: How many TAC students does it take to change a light bulb? I really need to know.

A: Don't worry, it all becomes clear for you senior year.
August 23 at 7:56pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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..
August 23 at 7:59pm · Like

Catherine Ryland It does! You know everything there is to know in the whole universe by senior year.
August 23 at 7:59pm · Unlike · 4

Michael Beitia I've only been asking you for IDK 2.5 YEARS to define what the hell you're talking about, Scottegrine....
August 23 at 8:13pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia maybe less, I exaggerate
August 23 at 8:13pm · Like · 1

Claire Keeler 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.
August 23 at 8:15pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I had Sean Collins for senior lab as well. Excellent man for the job
August 23 at 8:16pm · Like · 2

Marie Pitt-Payne That's inaccurate. It's junior year.
August 23 at 8:16pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I knew everything by sophomore year
August 23 at 8:17pm · Like · 2

Marie Pitt-Payne Precocious.
August 23 at 8:18pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I was one wise fool
August 23 at 8:18pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Such madness... and schadenfreude...
August 23 at 8:24pm · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Okay, are you ready for a definition of sacred theology, a definition to set the world on fire?

I deliver a promise to not overpromise and underdeliver.
August 23 at 8:43pm · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Right now, everything is happening at the same time. Just a thought. I digress...
August 23 at 9:01pm · Like

Joshua Kenz I always through that junior and senior math and science needed major revision. But I also had Mrs. Gustin for senior math, which was a disaster (that may not have been the case had it been just a few years before)

What is covered freshman and sophomore year was okay. But there is a reason Fabre is often sold to homeschoolers....a fun text maybe through middle school. Of course you cannot presume that freshman would have covered such basic things, but I still think of sophmore and freshman year as remedial, and the important aspects able to be accomplished much more quickly.

Senior year needed more order. And more competent tutors. Ours for science was actually good. The same cannot be said of say junior mathematics. Frankly after having what sadly devolved to a shouting match with the tutor over what dx/dy meant, I was bemused the next morning to overhear Dr. Ferrier repeating to my tutor the exact same points I made...even if one competently, you end with what is in some aspects less than HS calculus. And you only can hope to get infinitesimal calculus down. Which is woefully way behind. You never even hear epsilon, delta.

And we do a terrible disservice to non-Euclidean geometry, e.g. the hyperbolic geometry of Lobachevsky....heck how many students, in all foolishness tried proving the 5th postulate? Or squaring the circle, or giving a Euclidean trisection of the angle? All of which things are not simple unproved, but proved to be impossible. Heck many students didn't understand what was even meant by "Euclidean" when one said there was no way of trisecting the angle with "Euclidean geometry"

But frankly I liked Freshman and Sophomore year math. It could be improved, yes. But I found no major fault with it. The sort of things raised later, such as incorrect proofs given by Euclid that moderns have found I don't mind being ignored (partially because many of them may not be incorrect, e.g. book I prop I is listed as a faulty proof by moderns, because it assumes without proof that the two circles intersect....but that really goes to an argument over the nature of mathematics...and not a new one. Proclus gave that as an example of an error of Euclid.)
August 23 at 9:13pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia 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
August 23 at 9:41pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele Does anyone else think a whole semester on the Politics is unnecessary? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
August 23 at 9:47pm · Edited · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Possibly, but please don't even think about taking time away from the Ethics.
August 23 at 9:49pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Definition of Sacred Theology:

A preamble...

Let's define sacred theology. Let us give it a definition, in the same way that the lesser sciences have a definition; in the same way that natural theology (metaphysics) or geometry have been given a definitions. And what is a definition but a central truth? and how important truth is to knowledge! for, just as in the lesser sciences, an error is something that is not true, it is a falsehood, or an error in definition. But in sacred theology, which deals with higher things, what is an error in definition but a heresy? So let us define sacred theology in such a way as to ensure that every curriculum can adopt it easily, so that it helps the student begin at the right place and proceed in the right direction.
August 23 at 9:49pm · Like

Michael Beitia how about genus and difference? Can you do that?
August 23 at 9:50pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Okay, how about a cease-fire at least until the initial proposed definition is made? I for one am interested.
August 23 at 9:51pm · Like · 3

Claire Keeler Not to be picky, Nina, but it's Bueller! As in Ferris Bueller!
August 23 at 10:10pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele haha i had a classmate in highschool who spelled it that way... sorry... fixed it!
August 23 at 10:24pm · Edited · Like · 1

Marie Pitt-Payne "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
August 23 at 10:25pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Nina Rachele - I think a semester on the politics and ethics is more than needed - it is vital. The problem is the way it is treated.
August 23 at 10:35pm · Like · 2

Nina Rachele the way it is treated? you mean, the method, or the attitudes toward it of students or tutors?
August 23 at 10:37pm · Like

Nina Rachele I do believe in a full semester on the ethics.
August 23 at 10:38pm · Edited · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 23 at 10:41pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele That's one reason why I think it should be read in seminar, along with the other works of political science. Preferrably in its entirety, before we read Hobbes, for example.
August 23 at 10:47pm · Edited · Like · 2

Nina Rachele *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.
August 24 at 12:19am · Like

Shannon Williams ...and, you know, to feelings.
August 24 at 12:47am · Like · 2

Shannon Williams (I think I kind of thought of it that way too)
August 24 at 12:48am · Like · 1

Peter Halpin I'm blocking this undead mess of a thread.
August 24 at 1:07am · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Catherine, be careful about engaging the troll.
August 24 at 7:13am · Like

Catherine Ryland I am in fact interested in the magisterium topic because I've been struggling with my own difficulties (not because I am a TACer for sure -- on the contrary) to accept what it is and what kind of sway it really ought to have over intellectual inquiry, primarily because I was discussing it with someone over a certain period of time. 

My friend pointed out something I heard several times but haven't actually paid attention to: When a tutor takes the oath of fidelity, he or she says "... I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." 

This is clearly not talking about ex cathedra statements, because intention and pronouncement in a certain formula is clearly required for infallible statements. How is something part of the magisterium when the pope/bishops do not even intend it to be definitive? What does the above section of the oath even mean?
August 24 at 8:23am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland 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).
August 24 at 8:28am · Edited · Like

Catherine Ryland I understand not all tutors must take this oath (I suspect the non-Catholic faculty would not), but the wording of the oath sounds misguided. http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/catholic-life/oath-fidelity

Oath of Fidelity | Thomas Aquinas College
www.thomasaquinas.edu
In keeping with the College’s commitment to remain faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, and in accordance with canon law, members of the Thomas Aquinas College faculty take the Oath of Fidelity and make the Profession of Faith, printed below:
August 24 at 8:31am · Edited · Like · 1

Pater Edmund 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...
August 24 at 8:36am · Like · 4

Pater Edmund Even when they do not speak definitively the successors of the Apostles are authentic "witnesses to divine and Catholic truth," and "speak in the name of Christ" (Lumen Gentium 25), "The one who hears you hears me." (Luke 10:16).
August 24 at 8:40am · Like · 1

John Ruplinger 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.
August 24 at 9:55am · Like

Pater Edmund Who is the judge of whether they contradict prior teaching?
August 24 at 9:58am · Like · 2

John Ruplinger 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"?
August 24 at 9:59am · Like

John Ruplinger Pater, what is to be held de fide by the faithful? That is the question.
August 24 at 10:01am · Like

John Ruplinger One of the very terms in that CDF explanation is comdemned. What does "deeper understanding" mean. An ambiguous law is not binding.
August 24 at 10:10am · Edited · Like

Pater Edmund We are to discuss Pascendi as it relates to current teaching. Of course. Hermeneutic of continuity.
August 24 at 10:10am · Like · 1

John Ruplinger 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?
August 24 at 10:17am · Like

John Ruplinger Do you see my frustration?
August 24 at 10:20am · Like

Pater Edmund 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.
August 24 at 10:21am · Like

John Ruplinger then we agree
August 24 at 10:30am · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick How many discussions do we have going on here at the same time?
August 24 at 10:30am · Like · 2

John Ruplinger distinguish: religious submission vs. assent of faith
August 24 at 10:32am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund

August 24 at 10:33am · Like · 4

John Ruplinger cant see that... off to mass
August 24 at 10:35am · Like

Pater Edmund The picture was for Lauren Ogrodnick.
August 24 at 10:36am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund But John Ruplinger, assent of faith is strictly speaking only given to truths contained in the deposit of faith, but religious submission can be given to truths in some way connected to that deposit, or to prudential decisions of the rulers of the Church, the successors of the Apostles.
August 24 at 10:38am · Edited · Like · 2

Pater Edmund 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.
August 24 at 10:39am · Edited · Like · 2

John Ruplinger This relates to Catherine's question as well as Newman and development of doctrine and magesterium and theology at tac and how to teach. When it ends  it will be clear.
August 24 at 10:40am · Like

Pater Edmund It will never end.
August 24 at 10:40am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund ^That is not strictly true.
August 24 at 10:40am · Like · 2

John Ruplinger wherefore i winked
August 24 at 10:41am · Like · 1

John Ruplinger and when the one contradicts the other, what then? (And i see the hermeunetic of continuity as keeping open wide the door to private interpretation of dogma)
August 24 at 10:44am · Like

John Ruplinger of course fb could continue in heaven and thus it be strictly true too.
August 24 at 10:45am · Edited · Like · 1

Pater Edmund The living teaching office of the Church, especially that of the Supreme Pontiff, is the final judge when there is a dispute about seeming contradictions.
August 24 at 10:49am · Like · 3

John Ruplinger but has he so judged?
August 24 at 10:56am · Like

Pater Edmund "The talk was a series of assertions and interjections. Ambrose lived in and for conversation; he rejoiced in the whole intricate art of it - the timing and striking the proper juxtaposition of narrative and comment, the bursts of spontaneous parody, the allusion one would recognize and one would not, the changes of alliance, the betrayals, the diplomatic revolutions, the waxing and waning of dictatorships that could happen in an hour's session about a table. But could it happen? Was that, too, most exquisite and exacting of the arts, part of the buried world of Diaghilev?" (E. Waugh)
August 24 at 10:56am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund About what?
August 24 at 10:56am · Like

Pater Edmund Don't you have to go to Mass?
August 24 at 10:56am · Like · 5

John Ruplinger the disputes are not aired or hardly breathed.
August 24 at 10:57am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Sacred Theology:

A short definition.

Sacred theology is the science pertaining to all supernatural truths revealed by God to man in the sacred deposit of the Faith, under the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in Her extraordinary and ordinary capacities. It is distinct from natural theology (metaphysics) whose object is Being, and God, and which proceeds by reason.

The longer definition of Sacred Theology will be given before Peterson's fb page turns into a pumpkin.
August 24 at 11:27am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Now I see where you go wrong.
August 24 at 12:40pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Sic ergo theologia sive scientia divina est duplex. Una, in qua considerantur res divinae non tamquam subiectum scientiae, sed tamquam principia subiecti, et talis est theologia, quam philosophi prosequuntur, quae alio nomine metaphysica dicitur. Alia vero, quae ipsas res divinas considerat propter se ipsas ut subiectum scientiae et haec est theologia, quae in sacra Scriptura traditur. 

Utraque autem est de his quae sunt separata a materia et motu secundum esse, sed diversimode, secundum quod dupliciter potest esse aliquid a materia et motu separatum secundum esse. Uno modo sic, quod de ratione ipsius rei, quae separata dicitur, sit quod nullo modo in materia et motu esse possit, sicut Deus et Angeli dicuntur a materia et motu separati. Alio modo sic, quod non sit de ratione eius quod sit in materia et motu, sed possit esse sine materia et motu, quamvis quandoque inveniatur in materia et motu. Et sic ens et substantia et potentia et actus sunt separata a materia et motu, quia secundum esse a materia et motu non dependent, sicut mathematica dependebant, quae numquam nisi in materia esse possunt, quamvis sine materia sensibili possint intelligi. 

Theologia ergo philosophica determinat de separatis secundo modo sicut de subiectis, de separatis autem primo modo sicut de principiis subiecti. Theologia vero sacrae Scripturae tractat de separatis primo modo sicut de subiectis, quamvis in ea tractentur aliqua quae sunt in materia et motu, secundum quod requirit rerum divinarum manifestatio. 

Super Boethium De Trinitate, Q. 5, a. 4, Resp.
August 24 at 12:46pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 24 at 1:24pm · Edited · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick I don't think that response was addressed to you 
August 24 at 1:41pm · Like · 3

John Ruplinger 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.
August 24 at 2:16pm · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman John, that was not addressed to you.
August 24 at 2:17pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger 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
August 24 at 2:20pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman John, your last comment has made me laugh.
August 24 at 2:21pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Also, your thoughts about the hermeneutic of continuity are very interesting.
August 24 at 2:22pm · Like

Daniel Lendman I have two thoughts:
1. It seems to me that the assent of faith does not give way to religious assent. (Here I think of Joan of Arc) 
2. It seems that the hermeneutic of continuity, in order to be authentically employed, cannot "nod in favor of new teaching over established teaching. Rather, it must see how there is a concord, and reconcile both according to the authority of said teachings.
August 24 at 2:25pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman John, that last comment is addressed to you.
August 24 at 2:26pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia there is no escape. But Youknowwho distinguished "Sacred Theology" from metaphysics (natural theology to him) insofar as natural theology proceeds by reason. So I suppose Sacred theology is unreasonable. 

All clear here
August 24 at 2:28pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger 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).
August 24 at 2:32pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger But Daniel Lendman:
As to the first, she was never asked to deny an article of Faith and so it does not apply. As to the second, the problem is that it elevates any statement to level of infallible doctrine. There is NO WAY to question it.
August 24 at 2:34pm · Like

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 24 at 2:43pm · Edited · Like · 4

John Ruplinger Are objections to be tossed with the scholastic method as well? (continuing my previous post)
August 24 at 2:34pm · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 24 at 2:37pm · Like · 4

John Ruplinger Is it not ironic that we can question former teachings of the Chruch under the "doctrine" of development, but we are barred from questioning any current statements (and how current? today's? fifty years ago?) under religious submission? The only ground for criticizing current teaching (or the best I should say) is prior teaching; thus the grounds for valid criticism have been undercut.
August 24 at 2:41pm · Edited · Like · 3

John Ruplinger 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.
August 24 at 2:46pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia hence the nostalgia for one page encyclicals.....
August 24 at 2:54pm · Like · 3

John Ruplinger Yet another riddle: almost every peritus (including Ratzinger) has at some time declared discontinuity or even rupture (either triumphantly or with remorse)
August 24 at 3:00pm · Like

John Ruplinger why can't we throw Unum Sanctam and Nostra Aetate in a ring and watchem duke it out?
August 24 at 3:03pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia 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......
August 24 at 3:05pm · Like · 4

John Ruplinger or one Matthew might like  : Libertas vs. DH. [I'll bet it all on the former btw  ]
August 24 at 3:06pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I dunno. Seems like VII is treated as superdogma by almost no one.
August 24 at 3:15pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Sweet, someone mentioned Joan of Arc. I was also thinking of her. Daniel , you are on a roll!
August 24 at 3:16pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland (Though I still recommend kindness to people (including "trolls"), even if they are unkind back to you.)
August 24 at 3:16pm · Edited · Like · 1

John Ruplinger but can any one say what it means? authoratatively? If we changed this thread to "will the real vii stand up", we could guarantee its unendingness. (Matthew)
August 24 at 3:19pm · Edited · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Isn't that the problem though -- not even the magisterium knows what the magisterium actually includes?
August 24 at 3:21pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger or means. . .
August 24 at 3:33pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman 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."
August 24 at 3:33pm · Edited · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I just don't see many saying or acting as if VII was superdogma.

I do see a lot of people on this thread making superdogma out of a tiny fraction of other councils and Papal pronouncements ripped out of context to suit their own present purposes, however.

August 24 at 3:35pm · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick 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.
August 24 at 3:36pm · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman Matthew, I also encounter a lot of V2 as Superdogma.
August 24 at 3:37pm · Unlike · 4

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 24 at 3:42pm · Edited · Like

Matthew J. Peterson But their use of VII is similar to the select use of certain Papal pronouncements and encyclicals and councils on the other extreme, I suppose.

In both cases we know the obvious black and white position of the Church via a few mantras ripped out of context to fit the personality and predilections of the proponent in contemporary life.
August 24 at 3:45pm · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau You can tell when this thread will be resuscitated -- when you get notification that someone is 'liking' your posts from 2 days ago...
August 24 at 3:48pm · Like · 3

John Ruplinger no the problems surely predate vii. And how can i bring up all the docs of the prior hundred years. Lots more than a couple docs. One could point to entire corpora of some popes.
August 24 at 3:49pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 24 at 3:50pm · Like

John Ruplinger The more one reads, the more the contrast appears. And the more clear the underlying problems.
August 24 at 3:53pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau We finally have a definition on the table.
August 24 at 3:54pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure In short, TAC says in its charter that its curriculum and presentation of metaphysics is necessary for the completion of theology as a science. In fact, the Church, infallibly, states the exact opposite.
August 24 at 3:55pm · Like

John Ruplinger 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.
August 24 at 4:04pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia for those John) who can't see it:

"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."
August 24 at 4:02pm · Like · 1

Brian Gerrity 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.
August 24 at 4:05pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Peterson: No one has ever claimed Trent, or Lateran IV or Florence was "THE COUNCIL". VII gets that treatment. I've been told VII overrides and nullifies everything that came before, an obvious impossibility from the Catholic perspective.
August 24 at 4:06pm · Like · 5

Michael Beitia It's like trying to read Lumen Gentium without having read Mystici Corporis. Not freakin' possible.
August 24 at 4:07pm · Like

Michael Beitia Simple right way of thinking:
Interpret the obscure by the plain.
August 24 at 4:07pm · Like · 1

Brian Kemple 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.
August 24 at 4:13pm · Like · 7

Peregrine Bonaventure The definition of sacred theology has been around for hundreds of years. It's surprising how anyone could have missed it.
August 24 at 4:16pm · Like

John Ruplinger (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).
August 24 at 4:18pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia Perescott of Goodriddens, you equivocate on "Wisdom" and claim that you're not. You take, explicitly, only one definition, and misapply that definition to the founders of TAC. 
That, my "friend", is called a straw man
August 24 at 4:23pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 24 at 4:24pm · Like

Michael Beitia ^that, my "friend", is called douchebaggery
August 24 at 4:24pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia and no one is sputtering, more like TLDR
August 24 at 4:25pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I could go paragraph at a time and tell you where you're wrong, but I don't think you'd listen.
August 24 at 4:28pm · Edited · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick 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.
August 24 at 4:34pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Est quod est.
August 24 at 4:40pm · Like

Catherine Ryland 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.
August 24 at 5:07pm · Edited · Unlike · 7

Catherine Ryland Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think no one at TAC is claiming to teach dogmatic or systematic theology, or even claiming that the way they teach theology is the only way or anything like that. 
In fact, and to me this is one of the pluses of TAC, they don't really claim to teach anything at all -- they give the students access to these amazing and enduring texts from all time, and basically let them sink or swim, only they remind us that there is truth and Truth that we are all looking for, and we only have an incomplete piece of that since it is infinite. 
They don't even have professors who profess to teach, but rather are co-disciples or travelers maybe further along the same road, who are asking questions of the students (and of themselves) to goad everyone to keep delving further into greater understanding of everything.

And in fact many students are converted this way -- they go looking for further instruction in the official teachings of the Church (through RCIA or whatnot). My classmate was agnostic when she came (culturally Buddhist) and she is now baptized Catholic and in many ways a better Catholic than I am.

They most probably are not converted by the humility or charity of its students.
August 24 at 6:08pm · Edited · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland 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.
August 24 at 5:17pm · Edited · Like · 12

Matthew J. Peterson ^Sweet, sweet RATIONALITY.
August 24 at 5:23pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante Catherine has totally settled the initial question. Really.
August 24 at 5:28pm · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland But we still have to settle the magisterium problem. That could take a while.
August 24 at 5:38pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante I don't have one; but you all have fun!
August 24 at 5:39pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Calvinists....
August 24 at 5:58pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley 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.
August 24 at 6:18pm · Like · 6

Edward Langley I've always taken "religious submission of intellect and will" to be a limited kind of promise: it's saying something like "I will not contradict authoritative teaching publicly and will be slow to think the opposite, especially in matters outside my area of expertise." (Or something like that).
August 24 at 6:24pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley 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.
August 24 at 6:26pm · Like

Edward Langley (in evidence of which see Descartes et sequaces eius)
August 24 at 6:26pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson We agree to agree, except when we don't...

Protestants agree to disagree, except when they don't...
August 24 at 6:29pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante Strictly speaking, it's close to that: it means that one owes in trust and loyalty full assent of mind and will to propositions taught with regular authority (not merely that one owes it to the Church to be "slow to think the opposite"), *unless* one's informed (and there are clear criteria for "information") mind and conscience cannot but dissent, in which case, dissent must remain private and the public teaching not openly contradicted, though prudent questions in principle can be posed depending on the degree of authority which the proposition was taught, and one's own state in life.
August 24 at 6:30pm · Edited · Unlike · 3

Edward Langley That's a better way of saying what I was trying to say.
August 24 at 6:31pm · Like · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick There usually is a better way to say what you are trying to say Edward Langley  (said with the utmost charity and in friendship  )
August 24 at 7:37pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 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
August 24 at 7:58pm · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland JA, you wish I settled it.
August 24 at 8:02pm · Like

JA Escalante you settled it in principle. practice will prove to be another thing, I'm sure
August 24 at 8:03pm · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland As Michael says, it's already been settled many times before. But that doesn't keep us from trying to reach an infinite number of comments. (And yes I think we should eventually discuss both 'infinite' and 'number'.)
August 24 at 8:04pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia transfinite.. have you studied your Georg Cantor? Is it aleph-null or greater?
August 24 at 8:06pm · Like

Catherine Ryland No, I went to TAC.
August 24 at 8:06pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia bwahahahahaha.... I forgot, the program with a huge amount of math doesn't study math....
August 24 at 8:07pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Far too much for me. Remember, TAC doesn't pretend to teach theology OR math. Just the historical development of mathematics.
August 24 at 8:09pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia then what the hell does it pretend to teach? Perescott? You seem to know everything...
August 24 at 8:28pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland History of mathematics. (Are you suggesting I'm another incarnation of the friendly thread troll?) Well, maybe philosophy of mathematics too. I don't know, maybe it does pretend to teach math. But then I really wouldn't have gone there.
August 24 at 8:29pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia oh yeah... I forgot
August 24 at 8:30pm · Like

Catherine Ryland My cousin is a math person and there was nowhere near enough mathematics for her.
August 24 at 8:32pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland 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.)
August 24 at 8:38pm · Edited · Like

Catherine Ryland Of course, because as Mr. Kenz or someone pointed out, you only get as far as basic high school calculus or something (okay, maybe a smattering of archaic non-Euclidean stuff), but it's not really the whole point of the program. It's only to make us nice little logical thinkers -- for the sake of philosophy, which is the handmaid of theology...
August 24 at 8:34pm · Edited · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland 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.)
August 24 at 8:48pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia and as an 18 year old know-nothing what "straight line" means. Self evident to the wise, and all that
August 24 at 8:40pm · Like

Michael Beitia “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!
August 24 at 8:42pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia with transcendental tobacco
August 24 at 8:44pm · Unlike · 2

Emily Norppa ^ isn't that called pot?
August 24 at 8:50pm · Unlike · 4

Michael Beitia maybe in Cali.... here in the midwest we call it "reefer"
August 24 at 8:50pm · Like · 1

Emily Norppa Where in the midwest are you? We call it "pot" in WI.
August 24 at 8:51pm · Like

Michael Beitia Hippies!
August 24 at 8:53pm · Edited · Like · 1

JA Escalante "magisterium-bot"
August 24 at 8:58pm · Like

Catherine Ryland I was called that recently.
August 24 at 9:00pm · Like · 3

Emily Norppa I asked Tom Sundaram a legalistic question recently, and answered as the self-dubbed LEGALISM BOT.
August 24 at 9:01pm · Like · 4

John Haggard I'm just trying to do my part to get this post to two thousand comments.
August 24 at 9:04pm · Like · 6

JA Escalante is transcendental tobacco "magisterium-pot"?
August 24 at 9:11pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia every time someone says "-bot" I just think hedonism bot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5JxIrn4OVs

Hedonism Bot - Let the Games Begin
August 24 at 9:27pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 24 at 9:48pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia again, you're making it up as you go along, Perewhatever. 

You're the one calling it metaphysics (and defining metaphysics other than St. Thomas)
August 24 at 9:51pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure 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?
August 24 at 9:58pm · Edited · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell The claim they're making is about the knowledge reasoned to (the conclusions), and not the way one gets there (one can get there by reasoning or by divine revelation). And IIRC it's Thomism 101 that there is a difference between special and general metaphysics (cf. De ente et essentia ... or perhaps the commentary on Boethius' De Trinitate ... can't recall and too lazy to look it up). The mistake you're accusing them of would be one only an idiot would make.
August 24 at 10:47pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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)
August 24 at 11:02pm · Edited · Like

JA Escalante "development" is being used there in the Newmanian sense, and it's an obvious fact. If no metaphysics, then no Nicaea, and thus no decisive answer to heresy. It is not being claimed that the substance of revelation needs to be supplemented by metaphysics in a kind of partim/partim relation, only that theology to fully articulate itself must use metaphysics. Totally uncontroversial and orthodox.
August 24 at 11:31pm · Edited · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure 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?
August 24 at 11:31pm · Edited · Like

JA Escalante "heresy" is a big word, especially when deriving that conclusion based on an elementary misreading of a very uncontroversial text
August 24 at 11:32pm · Unlike · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 24 at 11:35pm · Edited · Like

Edward Langley You keep using English, I don't think it means what you think it means.
August 24 at 11:37pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante 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.
August 24 at 11:39pm · Unlike · 4

Matthew J. Peterson "The purpose of the required philosophy courses is to assist students in a philosophical understanding of God, his creation, the nature of the human person, and certain philosophical errors which influence contemporary thought and scholarship, with the ultimate aims of providing a philosophical foundation for theological studies and of enabling students to present the Faith more reasonably and effectively."
August 24 at 11:40pm · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson Who said that?
August 24 at 11:40pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Heretics.
August 24 at 11:40pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson 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."
August 24 at 11:41pm · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Here we see a collapse into an inability to respond seriously to a very straightforward flaw revealed about Thomas Aquinas College. It teaches that metaphysics is necessary for the full development of theology. This is what the Charter of the college states clearly. This claim is a material heresy. No one responds to this fact, other than to say it is a wrong interpretation, and that this pat denial is a precise response. This is ridiculous.

This is what the Charter states, and this is what the College teaches: metaphysics is necessary for sacred theology. This claim is false, and contrary to what the Church teaches.
August 24 at 11:42pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson "86-credit-hour core curriculum, ordered by Thomistic wisdom within a historical matrix"

Heresy

"Catholic Theology and Thomist Philosophy play a central role"
August 24 at 11:43pm · Like

JA Escalante I am going to repost what I wrote above. Please answer it, or stop talking.

"development" is being used there in the Newmanian sense, and it's an obvious fact. If no metaphysics, then no Nicaea, and thus no decisive answer to heresy. It is not being claimed that the substance of revelation needs to be supplemented by metaphysics in a kind of partim/partim relation, only that theology to fully articulate itself must use metaphysics. Totally uncontroversial and orthodox"
August 24 at 11:43pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante that is not a pat denial- that is an argument based on a distinction, and you have ignored both
August 24 at 11:44pm · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau Blue Book?
August 24 at 11:44pm · Like

Sam Rocha 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.
August 24 at 11:46pm · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson More heresy, no doubt:

"Finally, he studies philosophy, not just for the sake of a knowledge of reality, but also because philosophy serves to increase his understanding of the Creator of all things. He studies each of these disciplines for its own sake, but also uses them in the service of something higher. The Catholic tradition, then, does not destroy or diminish liberal education, but rather perfects it. The Catholic free man studies all of the disciplines both for their own sake and in the service of Theology, the 'Queen of the Sciences.'"
August 24 at 11:49pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 24 at 11:51pm · Edited · Like

Sam Rocha

August 24 at 11:51pm · Unlike · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure This is sad.
August 24 at 11:52pm · Like

JA Escalante Hahahahha
August 24 at 11:52pm · Like

JA Escalante oh dear
August 24 at 11:52pm · Like

JA Escalante let's imagine Nicaea without metaphysical discourse. Go for it
August 24 at 11:52pm · Unlike · 5

Matthew J. Peterson 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.
August 24 at 11:55pm · Unlike · 3

Jody Haaf Garneau Does anyone study St Thomas seriously without studying metaphysics? And doesn't St Thomas still hold pride of place among all theologians? I don't see the problem.
August 24 at 11:55pm · Like · 1

Sam Rocha 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...
August 24 at 11:56pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure The doctrine of the Trinity was already very much a part of the sacred liturgy in the Eastern, Western and Oriental church's at the time of Nicea. What I think we see at Nicea is sacred tradition and the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium affirming tradition, and also helping to perfect a line of reasonable metaphysics. But to suggest that Nicean doctrine would have been impossible without metaphysics, or that metaphysics was necessary for Nicean doctrine to occur is really ludicrous. Sorry.
August 24 at 11:56pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Although I believe Peregrine Scott Wineberg has been calling all of St Thomas metaphysics. Which is just dumb.
August 24 at 11:57pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Why do you believe that, Jody?
August 24 at 11:57pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Which?
August 24 at 11:58pm · Like

JA Escalante I see. Nicaea defined its doctrine using purely Biblical categories, and then, on the side, as a favor to philosophy, perfected a line of metaphysics. Just on the side, you know. Nothing to do with the definition.
August 24 at 11:58pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure That I have been calling all of St. Thomas metaphysics?
August 24 at 11:58pm · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau You have been referring to all that is studied in the theology tutorial as metaphysics. You won't allow the study of the Summa to be called theology. Am I missing something in the last 1600 messages?
August 24 at 11:59pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante 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. "
August 25 at 12:00am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure The claim that TAC makes is that metaphysics is necessary for the full development of sacred theology. No one suggested that understanding metaphysics is not good when you study Thomas, Jody. But that is not the false claim the college is making. I thought you students understood distinctions.
August 25 at 12:00am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Not just good but necessary.
August 25 at 12:01am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure ?
August 25 at 12:01am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson 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...
August 25 at 12:01am · Like · 6

Jody Haaf Garneau Philosophy provides the language for theology. It isn't more important; it is required to talk about it most clearly.
August 25 at 12:01am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 12:02am · Like

JA Escalante hahahaha
August 25 at 12:03am · Like

JA Escalante "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.":
August 25 at 12:03am · Like · 5

Jody Haaf Garneau ^^ money quote
August 25 at 12:03am · Like · 1

JA Escalante that thing had an imprimatur and nihil obstat
August 25 at 12:04am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Jody, philosophy provided language for Thomas. The sacred theology of the Church is broader than this. Sorry they don't teach you this.
August 25 at 12:04am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau So we are back to studying St Thomas just isn't enough.
August 25 at 12:04am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau There are encyclicals that address that
August 25 at 12:04am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Depending on is not the same thing necessistating.
August 25 at 12:05am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Oh really?
August 25 at 12:06am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No, Jody, it's more about what the Church teaches as sacred theology, not Thomas' theology. Thomas erred. The Church does not.
August 25 at 12:06am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yep, really.
August 25 at 12:06am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Metaphysics is not necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology. Revelation is. This quote reveals the TAC skew, its material heresy.
August 25 at 12:07am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure A plant may depend on water. But water does not give a plant its being.
August 25 at 12:07am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 12:11am · Edited · Like

Sam Rocha Am I the only person on this thread who is starting to feel a bit awkward?
August 25 at 12:12am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure If you believe in the false doctrine that metaphysics is necessary for the fulfillment of theology, you should feel awkward.
August 25 at 12:14am · Edited · Like

Sam Rocha Dude, I stopped trying to follow what you seem to think passes for an argument at triple digits. Now I just wonder if you are a savant or just nuts, which might also be mutually inclusive.
August 25 at 12:14am · Edited · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson Sam Rocha: I'm beyond awkward. A jaded face in Zuckerberg's Book of life.
August 25 at 12:14am · Unlike · 4

Emily Norppa Sam: But we're so close to 2000 comments!
August 25 at 12:14am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha And then there's THAT.
August 25 at 12:14am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Nevermind, what was I thinking. Carry on, carry on, carry the fuck on.
August 25 at 12:15am · Like · 2

Andrew Whaley I saw this thread had exploded, speculated how it got that way, and it would seem I was right. LOL.
August 25 at 12:15am · Edited · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson Bwhahaha...this thread just is, man.
August 25 at 12:15am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Sam, Dude, you seem like a really malformed character. I'll pray for you.
August 25 at 12:15am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Thanks. Malformed doesn't even begin to tell the story. But toss some prayers for me when you're not slaying dragons on the interwebz.
August 25 at 12:16am · Edited · Like · 3

Sam Rocha I'm just here for the LOL's.
August 25 at 12:17am · Like · 1

Ryan Penn Peregrine, the howling troll. Why don't you attend to that last quote JA just listed; you can't possibly believe your earlier comment did so with any coherence can you? Nicean formulations without metaphysics?!! Were the unicorns with you when you came to that conclusion?
August 25 at 12:17am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 12:18am · Like

Marina Shea Sam you're my fav
August 25 at 12:18am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Aw, shucks...
August 25 at 12:18am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Ryan, I am not a howling troll. Your rhetorical question "Nicean formulations without metaphysics?!!" simply begs the question.
August 25 at 12:18am · Like

Marina Shea So can we safely assume we all need real hobbies? I recommend rock climbing.
August 25 at 12:19am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure BTW, are any of you familiar with any of the Church's dogmas on sacred theology and revelation?
August 25 at 12:19am · Like

Marina Shea Ummmm at least one accredited institution says I am.
August 25 at 12:20am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau I really take exception to you (Scott Peregrine) accusing the founders of anything when they are not here to defend themselves.

Did you know it is a sin to assume (and I would guess another sin to publicly accuse) another of a mortal sin? 

Am I the only one who can imagine Mr Berquist taking Scott's argument apart syllable by syllable? Dr McArthur would just thump and let him have it all in one blast (if he bothered to address such ridiculous arguments)
August 25 at 12:20am · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure For hobbies, I think going to a Catholic college that actually teaches what the Church teaches is a great place to start.
August 25 at 12:20am · Like

Marina Shea So there's that. But really Peregrine can't we just fight about molanism?
August 25 at 12:20am · Like

Marina Shea It's far less ridiculous
August 25 at 12:20am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Jody, I love your loyalty to the founders. If you were only half as loyal to the Church are Her teachings as you were to a group of extremist academics...
August 25 at 12:21am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau 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.
August 25 at 12:21am · Like

Marina Shea And that's not a hobby. Go talk to Dr Long and Waldstein if you want to fight about my theology credentials
August 25 at 12:21am · Edited · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Molanism?
August 25 at 12:21am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson IN A WORLD of material heresy...ONE MAN...
August 25 at 12:21am · Edited · Like · 3

Sam Rocha 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?
August 25 at 12:21am · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure one man... and about 42 dogmas of the Church.
August 25 at 12:22am · Like

Marina Shea Sorry Molinism. Thanks siri
August 25 at 12:22am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Brian kelly writes those endorsements, Jody, not your bishop.
August 25 at 12:22am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson will face the hordes of Thomas Aquinas College grads...ALONE...
August 25 at 12:22am · Like · 3

Jody Haaf Garneau Um. I can talk to my bishop directly. He isn't talking through anything.
August 25 at 12:23am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Me, and the elephant in the room.
August 25 at 12:23am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau That's just ridiculous Scott PB
August 25 at 12:23am · Unlike · 1

Marina Shea So Matthew what are you avoiding tonight?
August 25 at 12:23am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Your bishop is not what the Church teaches. Ask him is metaphysics is necessary for sacred theology.
August 25 at 12:24am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson 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
August 25 at 12:24am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Stay on topic, Marina. The topic is I was just going to do something but I can't recall and that butter in the freezer needs to thaw but I think I'll watch another Ice Bucket fail video...
August 25 at 12:24am · Like · 5

Jody Haaf Garneau No -- according to you Scott PB, no one bishop, no cardinal -- but you alone are the voice of the Church.
August 25 at 12:25am · Like · 2

Marina Shea I'm reading Much Ado About Nothing. I like this part:
"I wonder that you will still be talking, Signor Benedick.
Nobody marks you."
August 25 at 12:25am · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson Don't worry, I doubt I will get the job.
August 25 at 12:25am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Like a true academic.
August 25 at 12:26am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 12:26am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Jody, everyone I have talked to, who has had any contact with TAC alum, thinks you guys are nuts... a breeding ground of all sorts of heresies.
August 25 at 12:28am · Like

Sam Rocha Did I miss a meeting regarding classical antiquity and patristics? Damn. I *always* miss that meeting.
August 25 at 12:28am · Like · 4

Sam Rocha <raises hand> Not this guy. Good chaps at TAC, if a bit square and not much fun at the pub (even thought they think they're a hoot, they're usually not).
August 25 at 12:29am · Like · 4

Marina Shea Ok Pere, can I call you Pere? We're all mad here. Haven't you heard?
August 25 at 12:29am · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson This summer, watch a troll transform: INTO SOMETHING YOU'VE NEVER BEFORE.

Peregrine Bonaventure: THREAD DRAGON
August 25 at 12:30am · Unlike · 3

Marina Shea Sam you have never seen me in a pub. Don't talk nonsense
August 25 at 12:30am · Like · 2

Marina Shea And I'm damn witty thank you very much.

See what I did there?
August 25 at 12:31am · Like · 1

JA Escalante Sam Rocha come to Berkeley and I will vindicate the TAC pub spirit for you
August 25 at 12:31am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland So close to 2000, so close.
August 25 at 12:31am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 12:32am · Like

Sam Rocha I think I should play a show down there this year, I'll letcha know. But I'll bring a book and a pillow, just in case.
August 25 at 12:33am · Like

Marina Shea Sure. File a complaint with Cardinal Burke. He spoke there so I'm sure he has the address.
August 25 at 12:33am · Unlike · 4

Matthew J. Peterson Sam Rocha, your words ring true, but they reveal you haven't been drinking with the right grads. First off, distrust people who graduated in four years...

You need to play LA. We can make this happen.
August 25 at 12:33am · Like · 4

Marina Shea I don't think they ever had a show there Sam. You could play it at Steckle though. That could work.
August 25 at 12:34am · Like · 1

Emily Norppa Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Stahp.

(for what follows, please interpret ALL CAPS as italics. Seriously, Facebook, why can't we write in italics in comments?!)

Isn't SOME KIND of metaphysics necessary for Sacred Theology, at least in the sense that WE NEED SOME VOCABULARY in order to talk about non-physical things? I'm not saying that Ye Perfect Metaphysics will be in place prior to any work in Sacred Theology, and in fact Mr. Bonaventure seems quite right that Sacred Theology would perfect metaphysics. But... we still need some WORDS to use to even begin the science, right?
August 25 at 12:34am · Like · 4

Catherine Ryland No, no, the true 4-year TACers will bring the book and the pillow. They might even share.
August 25 at 12:34am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Word. Seriously, toss my contact and I'll send them to my people (which is two people).
August 25 at 12:34am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau 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'.
August 25 at 12:34am · Like

Sam Rocha I knew I was on to something, but I see I made a category mistake. I still need empirical, no, *phenomenological* evidence.
August 25 at 12:35am · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau Yes Emily -- exactly. We need a language.
August 25 at 12:35am · Like

JA Escalante well I really am a heretic from the RC point of view but I know what the Catholic Church teaches and I know what the TAC Charter says and there is no problem there whatever, as I have demonstrated
August 25 at 12:35am · Like · 3

Marina Shea Dude Jody no worries. It's not damnable if you didn't receive a coherent explanation of why. Worst case is material, tops.
August 25 at 12:36am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I'll leave you with one parting thought. Go to the "Blue Book" and in part VII see where it states that metaphysics is necessary for sacred theology. Then compare this false statement with the Church's dogma on faith, revelation and the sacred science. This, by definition, is a heresy. Also note the vulgar comments and the sophistry coming from so many TAC alum. Then decide for yourself.
August 25 at 12:36am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau We're at 1,891 -- I'm sure we can make 2000 before bed.
August 25 at 12:37am · Like

Marina Shea I'm only sophistical when no one is listening.
August 25 at 12:37am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha 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?
August 25 at 12:38am · Edited · Like · 5

Matthew J. Peterson And Sam Rocha - def drink with JA Escalante
August 25 at 12:38am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Will someone please do a statistical analysis of the times that Peregine has said good bye in this thread?
August 25 at 12:38am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure JA, you have not demonstrated anything. TAC teaches that metaphysics is necessary for the full development of sacred theology. This contradicts the Church. You have falsely claimed that metaphysics was necessary for the full development of doctrine at Nicea. This is totally false and heretical.
August 25 at 12:38am · Edited · Like

Marina Shea I liked Anscombe. She has thoughts.
August 25 at 12:38am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha As I was saying ^^
August 25 at 12:38am · Like

Marina Shea I like people with thoughts. Darn that liberal education
August 25 at 12:39am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure The TAC Charter also claims that the curriculum places an emphasis on the doctrines of the Church instead of the history of the Church. Does anyone else see a problem here... maybe stretching things a bit?
August 25 at 12:41am · Like

Sam Rocha I will miss this thread.
August 25 at 12:41am · Like · 1

Marina Shea You know I might be mad. Ron MacArthur suggested my propensity for the word "like" indicated as much. Does that mean Pere and a TAC founder agree on something? *gasp* say it ain't so Sam .
August 25 at 12:41am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Philosophy of Education at UBC?? Good Lord!
August 25 at 12:42am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I want to elect Jody's bishop the next Pope.
August 25 at 12:42am · Like

Sam Rocha I'll miss you, metaphysically first, then theologically -- but never biblically -- Peregrine.
August 25 at 12:42am · Like

Marina Shea Hey his syllabus sounds interesting
August 25 at 12:42am · Like

Sam Rocha My syllabus of ERRORS, of course.
August 25 at 12:43am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau There is a spin off page dedicated to this thread (in case you missed it): https://www.facebook.com/GoesOnForever?fref=ts

The Neverending Thread
This is a fan page dedicated to "Slideshow: 2014 Seniors and Thesis Titles," a link post and ensuing commentary.
Community: 52 like this
August 25 at 12:43am · Like · 3

Marina Shea Well Sam those who can do. But as you are teaching education isn't that ironic?
August 25 at 12:43am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Peregrine, by the way, has just launched a new offensive at me, based on my subfield and place of employment.
August 25 at 12:44am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Is metaphysics necessary to the fulfillment of the philosophy of education at UBC, or does it not even depend on it?
August 25 at 12:44am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau You went to UBC?
August 25 at 12:44am · Like

Marina Shea But you have both. And that is something.
August 25 at 12:44am · Like

Sam Rocha I teach at UBC.
August 25 at 12:44am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Does UBC mean University Before Metaphysics?
August 25 at 12:45am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau Ah. I'm outside of Vancouver. So we share a "heretic" bishop
August 25 at 12:45am · Like · 1

Marina Shea No that's an M
August 25 at 12:45am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Peregrine, my good man, you just a decent joke!
August 25 at 12:45am · Like

Sam Rocha Jody, you ought to come to my show at Regent College this week, seriously...
August 25 at 12:46am · Like

Bekah Sims Andrews Thomas Aquinas College. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. My eyes have been opened Scotty Boy! Thanks.
August 25 at 12:46am · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Vancouver is tragically beautiful. There are no theologians in Vancouver.
August 25 at 12:46am · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell C'mon y'all, keep it going. I'm not going to bed until we hit 2,000!
August 25 at 12:46am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau So does Peregrine know you or was he stalking you Sam?
August 25 at 12:46am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure No one said you are scum and villainy. Just that your founders were reactionaries, who perpetrate material heresy.
August 25 at 12:46am · Like

Matt Badley Just sticking my head in here to make sure things aren't totally crazy.
August 25 at 12:47am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Jody, I hope you never stalk anyone. That would really be scary.
August 25 at 12:47am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Stalking.
August 25 at 12:47am · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell Again with the recognition of sarcasm! 
August 25 at 12:47am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau ah come on. You gave us more credit than that. We have become a heretic factory
August 25 at 12:47am · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau It is about time Matt showed up
August 25 at 12:47am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure "A breeding ground of heresy."
August 25 at 12:47am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha I just moved here, but I am already feeling VERY heretical, must be the water.
August 25 at 12:47am · Like · 1

Aaron Thibodeaux 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.
August 25 at 12:48am · Like · 4

Daniel P. O'Connell Floridated water, no doubt. It saps your vital essence.
August 25 at 12:48am · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau Dang, Vancouver is the anchor for the Catholic Church in Canada. We are orthodox. Not learned. But orthodox.
August 25 at 12:48am · Like

Sam Rocha To your question, Peregrine: You may want to read my book. It's short and has pictures. http://samueldrocha.wix.com/primer
A Primer for Philosophy and Education, by Samuel D. Rocha
samueldrocha.wix.com
A Primer for Philosophy and Education is a site promoting an illustrated book written by Sam Rocha.
August 25 at 12:48am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure No worries Sam, I do not think God holds UBC to the same standards as TAC. After all, they read more Aristotle than anyone.
August 25 at 12:48am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau I love how intrepid newcomers actually pop in and say something intelligent. Thank you.
August 25 at 12:49am · Unlike · 4

Sam Rocha Whew! Thanks man! I was pretty worried about that.
August 25 at 12:49am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure If Vancouver is orthodox, then you must be a relativist.
August 25 at 12:49am · Like · 1

Bekah Sims Andrews Well the alum are proficient breeders, good to know they're squeezing heresies in the with all the babies.
August 25 at 12:49am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Relativism works pretty well in relationships.
August 25 at 12:49am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Oh good, it even has ullustrations.
August 25 at 12:49am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Yep.
August 25 at 12:50am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau 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 ...
August 25 at 12:50am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Just make sure you teach your children the faith, before you turn them back over to TAC.
August 25 at 12:50am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Jody, for the record, I never called your bishop a heretic. That's not even funny.
August 25 at 12:51am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure If Relativism works well in relationships, Christ works even better.
August 25 at 12:52am · Like

Sam Rocha My children are, presently, red-blooded pagans, reading Homer, Norse myths, and Tolkien. Even Lewis is too soggy a Christian cracker for their taste.
August 25 at 12:52am · Like · 4

Sam Rocha Tell that to *your* relatives.
August 25 at 12:52am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Sam, I will pray for your children. You must teach them Faith. Teach them about Christ, as a person
August 25 at 12:52am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Well, you said he didn't support the College (Brian Kelly said he did?). You said if he did he is a heretic. But he does, he knows about the College. He is a lover and student of St Thomas. And given his jobs prior to this one, I think he knows a thing or 2 about post secondary education in the Catholic tradition.
August 25 at 12:53am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Sam -- do you homeschool?
August 25 at 12:53am · Like

Sam Rocha Sort of.
August 25 at 12:53am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha It's VERY complicated.
August 25 at 12:53am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau ah
August 25 at 12:54am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 12:54am · Like

Sam Rocha But, the short answer is, yes and no.
August 25 at 12:54am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Ah, yes and no. You must have gone to TAC Sam.
August 25 at 12:55am · Like · 1

Emily Norppa It sounds better than subjecting your kids to the crap in most schools (I'm looking at you, YA Literature).
August 25 at 12:55am · Like · 3

Emily Norppa Rarely affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish.
August 25 at 12:55am · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau He is only one bishop who has endorsed and supported the college. There are many. How can they be so wrong as to support a school based on heresy?
August 25 at 12:55am · Like

Sam Rocha I'll pray for your computer. I hope it keeps running. We need you.
August 25 at 12:55am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Ah, but Jody, you said I said he was a heretic, when you knew I did not. What does that tell you?
August 25 at 12:56am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Who do you pray to Sam?
August 25 at 12:56am · Like

Sam Rocha Anthony Hopkins gave a sweet talk at TAC. That has to count for something?
August 25 at 12:56am · Like · 2

Marina Shea that this has gone on too darn long
August 25 at 12:56am · Like · 1

Emily Norppa To get my 6th-12th grade teaching license, I had to take a CLASS in YA Lit. Yes, there was a GRADUATE-LEVEL CLASS devoted to this.

Just,... gah.
August 25 at 12:56am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure BTW, Sam, have you done the Grouse grind?
August 25 at 12:56am · Like

Marina Shea Sam you pray to Anthony Hopkins?
August 25 at 12:57am · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland Poor Emily. Did you have to read Twilight?
August 25 at 12:57am · Edited · Like · 1

Marina Shea Is he even dead?
August 25 at 12:57am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Anthony Hopkins did not. Did he?
August 25 at 12:57am · Like · 1

Marina Shea Yeah
August 25 at 12:57am · Like

Marina Shea It's totes on the webs
August 25 at 12:57am · Like

Emily Norppa No! Thankfully, even they saw that that shouldn't be on the list!
August 25 at 12:57am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 25 and counting. Does the ball drop?
August 25 at 12:58am · Like · 1

Emily Norppa Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
August 25 at 12:59am · Like

Sam Rocha 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...
August 25 at 12:59am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2IW08L1gLY

Sir Anthony Hopkins Talks to the Students of Thomas Aquinas College
On Thursday, March 29, students at Thomas Aquinas College were treated to an hour-long question-and-answer session with a visitor who is widely considered am...
August 25 at 12:59am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I didn't know they had Catholics at UBC.
August 25 at 1:00am · Like · 1

Edward Langley Theology: The study of things taught definitively by the Magisterium.

The Magisterium: Peregrine Bonaventure
August 25 at 1:00am · Like · 4

Sam Rocha I have no idea what the Grouse Grind is. Sorry.
August 25 at 1:00am · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell It had better drop. It's well past 12 midnight here in Michigan.
August 25 at 1:00am · Like

Sam Rocha Don't you know we're EVERYWHERE!?
August 25 at 1:00am · Edited · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland No they don't. They only have heretics.
August 25 at 1:00am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Uh oh.
August 25 at 1:00am · Like

Edward Langley Index Institutorum Prohibitorum:

1. TAC
2. Thomas Aquinas College 
3. TAC
August 25 at 1:00am · Edited · Like · 5

Jody Haaf Garneau Edward -- you finally got it.
August 25 at 1:00am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland We could always add UBC
August 25 at 1:01am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau Blue Book (add that to the Index)
August 25 at 1:01am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Well, if Anthony Hopkins talked to the students at TAC, that must mean they're all clear on the central issue of metaphysics and sacred theology then. What did he talk about?
August 25 at 1:01am · Like

Catherine Ryland I also nominate Steubenville, since I'm living here.
August 25 at 1:01am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau Being a movie star
August 25 at 1:01am · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Wait, are we going to have Y2K problems when we hit 2,000??
August 25 at 1:01am · Like · 4

Catherine Ryland Shakespeare.
August 25 at 1:02am · Like

Marina Shea He got bored and took a tour
August 25 at 1:02am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha OH SHIT!
August 25 at 1:02am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Blue book says...
August 25 at 1:02am · Like

Sam Rocha And method acting.
August 25 at 1:02am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau We're at 2000 -- you all have to go to bed now!
August 25 at 1:02am · Unlike · 3

Jody Haaf Garneau or pray
August 25 at 1:02am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Lovely talk.
August 25 at 1:02am · Like · 1

Emily Norppa WE DID IT, PEEPS!
August 25 at 1:02am · Like · 4

Sam Rocha I'M GOING FOR Y3K!!
August 25 at 1:03am · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell Ah, where are all these balloons and confetti coming from????
August 25 at 1:03am · Like · 4

Sam Rocha SO proud.
August 25 at 1:03am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Man of the match goes to the indefatigable Peregrine Bonaventure.
August 25 at 1:03am · Like · 3

Emily Norppa 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
August 25 at 1:03am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Blue Book says metaphysics is necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology. Infallible dogma says revelation neccessary for the fulfillment of metaphysics.
August 25 at 1:03am · Like

Marina Shea So anyways
August 25 at 1:03am · Like · 1

Marina Shea I clearly don't know a thing about sacred theo (won't my profs be sad) but I do love little kittens...
August 25 at 1:04am · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau Wait! You didn't get the balloons and confetti? Update your app.
August 25 at 1:04am · Like · 5

Sam Rocha Emily knows how to party.
August 25 at 1:05am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau Necessary can be said in may ways. Scott doesn't get that.
August 25 at 1:05am · Like

Sam Rocha When people say the internet is a waste of time, this is proof of why they are right and why I don't care.
August 25 at 1:05am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau ah. I'm going to bed… 2000 was my goal.
August 25 at 1:05am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I don't think you really need to know anything about sacred theo to go to TAC.
August 25 at 1:05am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I'm going to pour myself a glass of Maker's right after I wash my hands in a Pilate-like manner.
August 25 at 1:05am · Like · 5

Emily Norppa Why thank you, Sam. 
August 25 at 1:06am · Like · 1

Marina Shea I meant at Ave
August 25 at 1:06am · Like · 2

Marina Shea And way to miss the cultural reference point
August 25 at 1:06am · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 1:07am · Like

Sam Rocha So what do you *really* about sacred theo? I want some really spicy mystical secret dirt now that we're in the third millennium.
August 25 at 1:07am · Edited · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson

August 25 at 1:08am · Like · 5

Marina Shea Gnosis. Like Gnocchi only not
August 25 at 1:08am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Sacred theo is really a poetry Sam. A true myth. There, how's that?
August 25 at 1:08am · Like · 1

Marina Shea Fax me one Matthew
August 25 at 1:08am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I love Gnocchi.
August 25 at 1:08am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Hey man, I'm totally down with what you said right there.
August 25 at 1:09am · Like

Marina Shea John of the Cross ftw!
August 25 at 1:09am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Gnostic Gnocchi
August 25 at 1:09am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Sacred theo is a poetry that melts metaphysics and gets it right.
August 25 at 1:09am · Like · 3

Sam Rocha See? I don't disagree with this.
August 25 at 1:10am · Like

Marina Shea We could start a great restaurant. Thus solving the liberal arts employment issue
August 25 at 1:10am · Like · 4

Marina Shea I think melting is a weird word
August 25 at 1:10am · Like

Catherine Ryland Metaphysical Melting Mushrooms
August 25 at 1:10am · Like · 3

Daniel P. O'Connell Let's all get down!

August 25 at 1:10am · Like · 3

Sam Rocha Let's get metaphysical?
August 25 at 1:11am · Like · 6

Marina Shea No shrooms. That might send an inadvertent message
August 25 at 1:11am · Like · 3

Emily Norppa Ain't no party like a metaphysical party...
August 25 at 1:11am · Like · 2

Marina Shea If you change physical to metaphysical pop music gets awesome
August 25 at 1:11am · Like · 3

Sam Rocha Hey, I made some Augustinian soul music...
August 25 at 1:12am · Like · 2

Marina Shea Speaking of which buy Sam 's music
August 25 at 1:12am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I think Marina is a weird name. It sounds like a place where you park your boat.
August 25 at 1:12am · Like

Sam Rocha Bingo: http://samueldrocha.wix.com/late-to-love
late-to-love
samueldrocha.wix.com
August 25 at 1:12am · Like · 2

Marina Shea And a mermaid who died
August 25 at 1:12am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland I think we need the material heretics in Europe to wake up and get us all back on track with their definitive statements. It is 6 or 7 by now after all. All this celebration is disordering my soul.
August 25 at 1:13am · Edited · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Oh, that's sad. Sorry.
August 25 at 1:13am · Like

Marina Shea Eliot wrote me a poem
August 25 at 1:13am · Edited · Like · 3

Sam Rocha I feel like you just changed clothes, Peregrine. Nice new outfit.
August 25 at 1:13am · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell Isn't Marina also a saint in the Melchite Greek-Catholic Church?
August 25 at 1:13am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No!
August 25 at 1:13am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Catherine Ryland, do metaphysics. It's necessary.
August 25 at 1:14am · Like · 1

Marina Shea She's a Vietnamese martyr too
August 25 at 1:14am · Like · 2

Marina Shea But my parents were Protestants so I think they just liked it
August 25 at 1:14am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Thanks Sam, it's my UBC attire.
August 25 at 1:14am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Wasn't she the first mermaid every canonized?
August 25 at 1:14am · Like

Sam Rocha Right on. Pretty casual here I'm noticing. (We just moved here over a month ago.)
August 25 at 1:15am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Frome whence? (I like to try to use words like whence whenever I can.)
August 25 at 1:15am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Is UBC really 100 miles wide?
August 25 at 1:16am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Can you see West Van from your window?
August 25 at 1:16am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I grew up in West Van, and I've never told anyone that before.
August 25 at 1:17am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha I live in West Point Grey, as West Van as it gets, besides UBC proper.
August 25 at 1:18am · Edited · Like

Sam Rocha So I'm siting in West Van.
August 25 at 1:18am · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Back to this metaphysics thing. Does anyone think that necessary means something other than necessary?
August 25 at 1:19am · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Sam, are you related to the Rochas from Weslaco, TX?
August 25 at 1:19am · Like

Sam Rocha Oh shit. Maybe. My dad was born in Pharr.
August 25 at 1:20am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Are we talking necessity and sufficiency?
August 25 at 1:20am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Sam, in your capacity as a resident of West Point Grey, do you think metaphysics is necessary for the full development of sacred theology?
August 25 at 1:21am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Does it depend?
August 25 at 1:21am · Like

Catherine Ryland There are many senses of the word necessary.
August 25 at 1:22am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Not necessarily.
August 25 at 1:22am · Like

Sam Rocha If you want a serious answer, you'll have to explain to me exactly what you mean by all those terms. Particularly 'metaphysics,' and the expressions "full development" and "sacred theology."
August 25 at 1:23am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure In what sense is metaphysics necessary for the full development of sacred theology, when the Church teaches that only revelation is?
August 25 at 1:23am · Like

Sam Rocha I more or less think I get what you mean by 'necessity.'
August 25 at 1:24am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 1:25am · Like

Sam Rocha If you don't mind, what, exactly, do you mean by 'science'?
August 25 at 1:26am · Like · 1

Marina Shea Isn't the metaphysics in God as knower?
August 25 at 1:26am · Like

JA Escalante the Church actually doesn't teach that only revelation is necessary; that's the Protestant position. The Church teaches that the magisterium is also necessary for the full development of theology. And continuing to dodge the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't helping you.
August 25 at 1:26am · Like · 4

Sam Rocha I don't care what it *is*, I just want to understand what Peregrine means when he uses those terms.
August 25 at 1:26am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure The way we know something with certainty. Either by reason, or by Faith. Two different ways of knowing.
August 25 at 1:26am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yeah, shut up, JA.
August 25 at 1:27am · Like

Catherine Ryland Doesn't metaphysics just mean study of first principles? You only sort of unintentionally bump into God in the end.
August 25 at 1:27am · Like · 1

JA Escalante oh such charity!
August 25 at 1:27am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I think he was joking.
August 25 at 1:27am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Sam, science means how we understand something with certainty. Metaphysics proceeds with reason. Sacred theology proceeds with revelation and assent by faith.
August 25 at 1:28am · Like

Sam Rocha "Do you think metaphysics is necessary for the full development of sacred theology?" 

Well, I don't really know, to tell you the truth. I have a hard time understanding how your puzzle pieces fit together. But, then again, I'm a Franciscan grad, so I'm not as bright as the TAC'ers.
August 25 at 1:28am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yeah, I was joking. Now shut up. (Joking.)
August 25 at 1:28am · Like

JA Escalante what Peregrine means is, theology is like an organism which has all the elements and factors of its own unfolding into final form within itself. Thus, nothing outside it is necessary. This is why he compares it to a poem
August 25 at 1:29am · Like

Sam Rocha I might just go strum a shitty P&W tune on my cheap guitar now...
August 25 at 1:29am · Like · 1

Marina Shea Catherine- I'm wondering more about on the lines of if faith is imperfect somewhere the knowledge of the thing itself exists
August 25 at 1:29am · Like

JA Escalante But theology is not fact like an organism, nor a poem
August 25 at 1:30am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha It strikes me, Peregrine, that you use the term 'theology' to describe what many tend to use the term 'metaphysics' for. Perhaps, we have a little language game going on?
August 25 at 1:30am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 1:30am · Like

Marina Shea JA go on?
August 25 at 1:31am · Like

Sam Rocha I don't like similes, either. They are not very helpful in this sort of talk.
August 25 at 1:31am · Like · 1

JA Escalante The Catholic Encyc says theology as a science "depends" upon metaphysics. No one called that heretical
August 25 at 1:31am · Like · 1

Marina Shea I love you like a love song
August 25 at 1:31am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Natural theology is metaphysics, Sam. We are speaking of natural theology vs sacred theology. Natural theology is not necessary in any sense of the word for the development and fulfillment of sacred theology, unles you are a TAC ideologue teaching heresy.
August 25 at 1:32am · Like

Marina Shea But we can know Natural Theology
August 25 at 1:32am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure JA, the Catholic Encyc does not say that. Your eye is biased.
August 25 at 1:32am · Like

JA Escalante Peregrine will you ever address the propositions in the CE
August 25 at 1:32am · Like

JA Escalante HAHAHAHA
August 25 at 1:32am · Like · 1

Marina Shea I mean someone can. I think I still take God's existence on faith. But I think Mr Berquist knew it.
August 25 at 1:32am · Like · 2

JA Escalante I quoted it, Peregrine.
August 25 at 1:33am · Like

Sam Rocha Aha! So metaphysics = nat theology, but you distinguish that from sacred theology. Okay, but why?
August 25 at 1:33am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Perhaps you could link the section here.
August 25 at 1:33am · Like

JA Escalante i did above
August 25 at 1:33am · Like · 2

JA Escalante twice
August 25 at 1:33am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha DO IT AGAIN!!!
August 25 at 1:33am · Like · 4

Catherine Ryland Sorry, missed it.
August 25 at 1:33am · Like

JA Escalante Peregrine keeps dodging it
August 25 at 1:33am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes Marina, we know natural theology by reason for the most part, but much of it is revealed in sacred theology. This proves that the sacred completes and fulfills the natural. This is what the Church teaches. TAC is wrong.
August 25 at 1:34am · Like

Marina Shea Well I thought it was just for fools like me who were too thick to get it
August 25 at 1:34am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure JA, I am not dodging it. You are misusing the Catholic Encyclopedia to try to confute dogma, and you are not succeeding.
August 25 at 1:34am · Like

Sam Rocha So, would you say that reading the Western Canon in chronological order is heresy?
August 25 at 1:35am · Like

Marina Shea Like God knows we can't all be super brilliant because he doesn't give us all the same things. So he let's us all have a fighting chance. You know dodging the whole Predest language
August 25 at 1:35am · Like · 2

JA Escalante 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. "
August 25 at 1:35am · Like · 4

Kathleen Wilson Does this thread have its own drinking game yet?
August 25 at 1:35am · Like · 7

Catherine Ryland But as far as I know metaphysics technically does not have God as its proper object.
August 25 at 1:35am · Edited · Like

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

Because sacred theology deals also with things we can only know by faith and revelation; plus it reveals some things we can know by reason.
August 25 at 1:35am · Like

Sam Rocha Cool. Sort of like psychoanalysis, eh?
August 25 at 1:36am · Like

JA Escalante AGAIN:

"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."
August 25 at 1:36am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Catherine, the proper object of metaphysics is God.
August 25 at 1:36am · Like

Catherine Ryland Thanks! I too saw that but I meant could you put a link there, so that people could see for themselves.
August 25 at 1:36am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure JA, I'm not talking to you anymore.
August 25 at 1:36am · Like

Sam Rocha You keep saying that though
August 25 at 1:37am · Like · 2

JA Escalante 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
August 25 at 1:37am · Like · 1

JA Escalante vide: relation to theology
August 25 at 1:37am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure It can depend, without necessity.
August 25 at 1:37am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It's not like psychonalysis at all.
August 25 at 1:38am · Edited · Like

Aaron Thibodeaux Does a fish depend on water to survive? Can we say water is necessary for its survival?
August 25 at 1:38am · Like · 2

Marina Shea And here I was hoping we could play tell your dream. Although not if it has a crab please.
August 25 at 1:39am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure We can say it is necessary for its survival, but not for its being. That's the point.
August 25 at 1:39am · Like

Sam Rocha Does metaphysics imply that reason is how we know, cause that's not really Plato's notion of the matter.
August 25 at 1:39am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes.
August 25 at 1:39am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure More than imply.
August 25 at 1:40am · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell "...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
August 25 at 1:40am · Like · 3

Marina Shea Sam- this is true. But Plato isn't a saint
August 25 at 1:40am · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell *drops mic*
August 25 at 1:40am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Isn't the proper object of metaphysics just 'being as being'? Or something like that.
August 25 at 1:40am · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Sacred theology, on the other hand, is God speaking to man, telling man certain mysteries about the faith.
August 25 at 1:40am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Catherine, yes. That is God.
August 25 at 1:40am · Like

Sam Rocha You should read Plato, dude. In Attic Greek. That is sacred theology.
August 25 at 1:40am · Like · 1

Aaron Thibodeaux Good! You've admitted to several meanings of "necessary"! Progress!
August 25 at 1:41am · Like · 1

Marina Shea Well also God-Man talking to man telling us about God and man
August 25 at 1:41am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It would be like sacred theology, if Socrates were God.
August 25 at 1:41am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Marina, yes.
August 25 at 1:41am · Like

Sam Rocha Are you trying to imply that Socrates was not God?
August 25 at 1:42am · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell Being as being is not God. If it were God, then Aristotle would not admit to there being 47 separate substances.
August 25 at 1:42am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Now the question is, is metaphysics necessary for God talking to man. No, according to the Church. Yes, according to this little college in California.
August 25 at 1:42am · Like

Marina Shea Sam stop being a heretic
August 25 at 1:42am · Like · 3

Sam Rocha I can't help myself.
August 25 at 1:43am · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland "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.
August 25 at 1:43am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Can we all agree that St. marina was a mermaid?
August 25 at 1:43am · Like

JA Escalante "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."
August 25 at 1:44am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure catherine, yes, but you reason your way there.
August 25 at 1:44am · Like

Catherine Ryland Metaphysics is absolutely philosophy, and not really theology, except in a sneaky way. Or am I being a heretic?
August 25 at 1:44am · Edited · Like · 1

JA Escalante http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm...

Library : Decree on the Reform of Ecclesiastical Studies of Philosopy
www.catholicculture.org
Library Document Decree on the Reform of Ecclesiastical Studies of Philosopy On March 22, 2011, in the Holy See Press Office a press conference was held to present the newly-published Decree on the Reform of Ecclesiastical Studies of Philosophy. Participating in the event were Cardinal Zenon Grochol…
August 25 at 1:44am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Thank you again JA for the scintilating demonstration.
August 25 at 1:44am · Like

Sam Rocha "is metaphysics necessary for God talking to man." Of course not!
August 25 at 1:44am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No metaphysics is also called natural theology. Because it studies God as being.
August 25 at 1:45am · Like

JA Escalante hahaha Peregrine keep avoiding the plain sense of words, and we'll all be persuaded of your profundity
August 25 at 1:45am · Like · 4

Marina Shea Well God is being I mean sure. But that missed the point
August 25 at 1:45am · Edited · Like

JA Escalante "needed"...sounds like necessity, doesn't it
August 25 at 1:45am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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?
August 25 at 1:45am · Like

Catherine Ryland You may reach God in metaphysics, but I still hold (like a parrot) that God is not the proper object, in that you don't set out to prove God's existence or anything, or you're not studying God as God.
August 25 at 1:45am · Like

Marina Shea Well at least someone isn't. #hopeyet
August 25 at 1:46am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Pretty sure that logging over a thousand FB comments is a heresy of some kind.
August 25 at 1:46am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 1:47am · Edited · Like

Marina Shea So of all you fine folk I do not have a spouse and/or kids. Whats everyone else's excuse?
August 25 at 1:47am · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland Well, anything you know, you know with your reason, right?
August 25 at 1:48am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha I already said it: I'm procrastinating, and the wife and kids are sleeping.
August 25 at 1:48am · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Well, I was in a bar one night talking about metaphysics and that's how I met my wife.
August 25 at 1:48am · Like · 2

Marina Shea So there is some good in it
August 25 at 1:48am · Like

Sam Rocha Is she a heretic?
August 25 at 1:48am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure No, catherine, some things you can only know by faith.
August 25 at 1:48am · Like

Marina Shea Please tell me you used a metaphysics pick up line
August 25 at 1:48am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure does she float?
August 25 at 1:49am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I used metaphysics as I pick up line. We have since brought six rational animals into existence.
August 25 at 1:49am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I don't get the heretics floating reference
August 25 at 1:49am · Like

Marina Shea Well good. The world must be peopled.
August 25 at 1:50am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Honestly, Peregrine, I think you'll like my book. I think we agree on the polarity and necessity, but perhaps don't quite see eye-toeye onhow TAC is reversing it.
August 25 at 1:50am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I believe it's from a movie that was directed and filmed in England by a group of comedians.
August 25 at 1:50am · Like

Sam Rocha I float.
August 25 at 1:50am · Like

Marina Shea "What’s a nice girl like you doing in a possible world like this?”"
August 25 at 1:50am · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland "some things you can only know by faith" right, but I just mean that if you didn't have any reason at all, you wouldn't know anything.
August 25 at 1:51am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure No, it was more like, "how would you like to exist together at my place."
August 25 at 1:51am · Like

Marina Shea Say we be dreaming. What then?
August 25 at 1:52am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 1:53am · Edited · Like

Catherine Ryland So in that sense, reason is necessary, unless you want to hold that irrational animals have faith
August 25 at 1:53am · Edited · Like

Marina Shea No
August 25 at 1:53am · Like

Marina Shea Peregrine- I sat in class with the founders multiple times. And as far as I know all of them mentioned the old lady who had faith as the one who knew more than the scholar without.
August 25 at 1:54am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 1:54am · Like

Catherine Ryland See, this is good, because we are coming to where the terminology or whatever you want to call it is getting in the way. I say it's the fault of TAC's advertising (since it throws around the term 'necessary' where it might be misunderstood). TAC is certainly not saying that you cannot know God by faith fully unless you reason to him first. In no way.
August 25 at 1:54am · Edited · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, I think it is that too. Same with some other colleges.
August 25 at 1:55am · Like

Catherine Ryland Here it is the word necessary that is the problem. Or metaphyisics.
August 25 at 1:56am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure We should be Catholics first, alumnists second.
August 25 at 1:56am · Like

Catherine Ryland Well, I'm saying that it comes from a misunderstanding of TAC's advertising material.
August 25 at 1:57am · Like

JA Escalante 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.
August 25 at 1:57am · Like · 8

Marina Shea Thank you JA
August 25 at 1:57am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha zzzZZZzzz
August 25 at 1:58am · Like · 1

JA Escalante oh i said it before, many times in the thread; but PB keeps dodging
August 25 at 1:58am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 1:58am · Like

Daniel Lendman If anyone is interested, I had a clear insight in to the Troll's error about theology up above, like a 1000 comments ago. This makes sense of all of his problems:
The troll 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.

Metaphysics is necessary to have the fulness of Sacred Doctrine because grace perfects nature.
August 25 at 2:00am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 2:01am · Like

Catherine Ryland Can you explain what you think metaphysics is Daniel? I think this is where the misunderstanding lies.
August 25 at 2:02am · Like

JA Escalante oh, Peregrine.
August 25 at 2:02am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Very, very simply.
August 25 at 2:02am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 2:03am · Like

JA Escalante Peregrine I'm a Calvinist, I have nothing invested in this at all, except the cause of truth in reading. And you're an absymal reader of texts.
August 25 at 2:03am · Unlike · 5

Sam Rocha 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.
August 25 at 2:04am · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Metaphysics is the science of being qua being. It cannot consider God directly. 
As Thomas says:
Sic ergo theologia sive scientia divina est duplex. Una, in qua considerantur res divinae non tamquam subiectum scientiae, sed tamquam principia subiecti, et talis est theologia, quam philosophi prosequuntur, quae alio nomine metaphysica dicitur. Alia vero, quae ipsas res divinas considerat propter se ipsas ut subiectum scientiae et haec est theologia, quae in sacra Scriptura traditur.
August 25 at 2:04am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 2:04am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel, that is true, but by analogy. It is wisdom in a qualified sense.
August 25 at 2:05am · Like

Marina Shea Please let's talk about analogy.
August 25 at 2:06am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure And metaphysics is a science that proceeds by reason, not by faith, and it is commonly refered to as natural theology.
August 25 at 2:07am · Like

Daniel Lendman So, Catherine, metaphysics only treats of the divine as principles of the subject.
August 25 at 2:07am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure It treats of God as the first cause.
August 25 at 2:07am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure And it treats of God in this way, as a science that proceeds by reason, not by belief.
August 25 at 2:08am · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure But sacred theology treats of God by Faith, by belief, as God revealing mysteries about Himself, which is the data of the science of sacred theology, which proceeds reasonably but by faith.
August 25 at 2:09am · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Now TAC asserts that metaphysics is necessary to fulfill the sacred. This is false. The Church confutes that in Her dogmas.
August 25 at 2:09am · Like

Marina Shea In what way tho
August 25 at 2:10am · Like

Marina Shea That is the question my friend.
August 25 at 2:10am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure In what way what tho?
August 25 at 2:10am · Like

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 25 at 2:10am · Like · 3

Marina Shea In what way is it necessary
August 25 at 2:11am · Like

Daniel Lendman i.e. start with GOd.
August 25 at 2:11am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure OK.
August 25 at 2:11am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure In no way is it necessary.
August 25 at 2:11am · Like

Marina Shea Dude that's not what i meant. In what sense do you mean necessary. Seriously just answer the question.
August 25 at 2:11am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure In NO WAY is it necessary. This is what the Church teaches.

It is absolutely necessary, is what the college claims.
August 25 at 2:12am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Necessary, meaning that without it, it would not be.
August 25 at 2:12am · Like

Daniel Lendman Therefore, metaphysics is necessary to have the fullness of Sacred Doctrine.
August 25 at 2:12am · Like

Marina Shea I don't think they meant that sense of necessary. There are many senses of the word. Words have nuances. It is what makes them wonderful things. Because sometimes we don't think like Kantians.
August 25 at 2:13am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure As in, sacred theology is necessary to metaphysics, because without it, it would not be in any way useful.
August 25 at 2:13am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure That's backwards Daniel. Why do you not see that?
August 25 at 2:13am · Like

Marina Shea No that isn't the only sense of necessity. Which has been said maybe a thousand times.
August 25 at 2:14am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Metaphysics is not necessary to sacred theology. Sacred theology is necessary to metaphysics. Faith is necessary for reason. God is necessary for being.
August 25 at 2:14am · Edited · Like

Marina Shea Will you puh-lease answer the question. I'm about to go full blown teen angst here.
August 25 at 2:15am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Marina, I know, there are many ways you can mean "necessary," but this is the particular sense that the College uses it. And this is the sense that the Church uses it when it says that the sacred is necessary for the natural, not the other way around.
August 25 at 2:16am · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure What is the question? How does the Church use necessary? How does TAC use necessary?
August 25 at 2:16am · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman Faith is imperfect. It is not what is desired. Thus, it passes away. Knowledge is perfect and perfected. We rely on Faith because we do not see. It is knowledge, however, that we seek. This is why you were right Catherine when you said we know all things with reason, i.e. by the rational faculty. We don't come to know all things by reason, but we hold things held by faith as though they were held by reason because we have greater certainty in them.
August 25 at 2:18am · Like · 3

Marina Shea 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.
August 25 at 2:18am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel, what the heck are you saying? The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Now I see your error.
August 25 at 2:19am · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell Goodnight, Irene.
August 25 at 2:19am · Like

Daniel Lendman This is why I used the axiom, grace perfects nature. Nature, in this case, knowledge of metaphysics, is perfected by Grace, in this case the light of faith, so that we can attain to the science of Sacred Doctrine.
August 25 at 2:20am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland 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?
August 25 at 2:20am · Edited · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Catherine, correct.
August 25 at 2:21am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman The troll either un-intentionally or intentionally misreads and misleads.
Marina, try not to engage him.
August 25 at 2:21am · Like · 2

Marina Shea Daniel- It was this or another episode of Buffy.
August 25 at 2:22am · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland [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.]
August 25 at 2:23am · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman I will comply with your request Catherine.
August 25 at 2:23am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I guess that would take the fun out of everything for everyone though.
August 25 at 2:26am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I only use the term troll as a formal designation to effectively convey to people what they are getting into. I have not and do not call anyone a heretic, because that is beyond my competency to determine. Someone might say something heretical, but I find that it is seldom useful to tell people that.
August 25 at 2:28am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland 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?
August 25 at 2:34am · Edited · Like · 4

Catherine Ryland No, of course you're not calling people heretics. (Well, not of course... PERHAPS you may have done such a thing in past years.)
August 25 at 3:07am · Edited · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland 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.
August 25 at 2:32am · Edited · Like · 1

Marina Shea Good woman, Catherine.
August 25 at 2:35am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland [You can all go back to name-calling when I go deal with my insomnia elsewhere.]
August 25 at 2:36am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau You guys are over achievers. You are 263 over 2000.
August 25 at 2:37am · Like · 5

Daniel Lendman I hope he can here what you are saying, Catherine. The same has been said to him before and to no avail.
August 25 at 2:38am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I thought you were going to bed, Jody! 
August 25 at 2:38am · Edited · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau I thought you were too! Just checking in.
August 25 at 2:39am · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland Not in a way that everyone can understand. I don't know that I have either.
August 25 at 2:39am · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman Perhaps. This same argument has occurred on various threads before.
August 25 at 2:40am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Okay, but at least we're all racking up comments.
August 25 at 2:41am · Unlike · 1

Daniel Lendman Which, finally, is what is important.
August 25 at 2:41am · Unlike · 4

Catherine Ryland Hence the thread renaissances of various stripes.
August 25 at 2:42am · Unlike · 1

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 25 at 2:42am · Like · 3

Joshua Kenz It amazes me that anyone would ignore the necessity for at least the most basic natural knowledge in understanding even one word of scripture. In determining what a term means, who would question, when possible, studying contexts outside of scripture (it is not like biblical Hebrew is the simplest thing)

Maybe some knowledge of what a mustard plant is like can help understanding that parable. Christ used imagery that would require generations of faithful to either study or accept from those that have things outside of revelation.

If in the most basic understanding outside knowledge is presumed, then revelation/scripture/theology cannot be wholly self-contained.

When we go further, we find that Christ is both God and man. True God, true man. Hmm....the concept of person is not in scripture. It is a concept, though, that corresponds with true reality. But not one worked out much before Christianity. So in coming to understand what the Incarnation meant, we had to turn to the light of reason and understand the reality accessible to it more clearly. And in doing so, having an understanding of personhood, we then saw the revealed truth to a greater extent. Call it philosophy, metaphysics, etc, but the greater natural knowledge means a greater understanding of a very basic tenet of the faith. We cannot even begin to articulate "true God, true man" without such aid.

How can anyone honestly doubt the benefits of studying philosophy, and especially metaphysics, for understanding the faith? Metaphysics is the study of being qua being. If one prefers, just as knowledge of the mustard plant gives a greater context to the parable of Christ, so too the knowledge of being qua being cannot but give a greater knowledge of the context of revelation, by shedding light on the very basic principles of His creation.
August 25 at 3:09am · Unlike · 12

Matthew J. Peterson

August 25 at 3:47am · Like · 10

Pater Edmund "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.
August 25 at 5:00am · Like · 5

Pater Edmund 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.
August 25 at 5:09am · Edited · Like · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick http://youtu.be/GB2yiIoEtXw

1080p HD "Good Morning" ~ Singin' in the Rain (1952)
From a recently surfaced 1080p High-Definition digital transfer of Singin' in the Rain (1952). Let's hope Warner decides to release a restored version of thi...
August 25 at 6:36am · Like

Nina Rachele Oh my goodness, you really broke 2000... nice work kids.
August 25 at 7:10am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Nothing to see here.
August 25 at 7:43am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 7:50am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It seems that Faith comes from Reason, therefore metaphysics and reason is necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology, just as Man is necessary for the fulfillment of God because God comes from Man.

On the contrary...
August 25 at 7:57am · Like

Michael Beitia 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....
August 25 at 8:07am · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure On the contrary, the Church teaches infallibly that revelation is necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology, and reason is insufficient for the fulfillment of faith, and the sacred science.

In response to this infallible teaching, TAC alumni claim that a section from the Catholic Encylopedia says the exact opposite of what it really says.
August 25 at 8:07am · Like

Michael Beitia you keep insisting that.... but you have no evidence, other than Pope Perescott's pronouncement.
August 25 at 8:08am · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman Everyone here would agree with this "On the contrary, the Church teaches infallibly that revelation is necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology, and reason [alone] is insufficient for the fulfillment of faith, and the sacred science."

I add "alone" because obviously there must be rational or intellectual beings in order for there to be revelation. 

This is what TAC teaches, this is what everyone here would agree with. If this is all you are saying, then there is no conflict.
August 25 at 8:17am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia 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
August 25 at 8:21am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman I know. I know.
August 25 at 8:22am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Catherine Ryland has guilted me into addressing the madness again.
August 25 at 8:23am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Behind this Potemkin village of black-robed students and mission-style buildings, dwells the host of rational heresies which proport that reason is necessary for the fulfillment of Faith.
August 25 at 8:27am · Like

Michael Beitia Says who? Were you there polling people?
August 25 at 8:28am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Can someone have faith without reason?
August 25 at 8:28am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Does faith even make sense without reason?
August 25 at 8:28am · Like · 3

Michael Beitia you can go to heaven without theology, however.
August 25 at 8:31am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Perescott, when he's not trollin' he's pollin'
August 25 at 8:31am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Obviously someone must have the rational faculty to have faith. Obviously, God has no need of the natural order of learning. 
However, if one wants to pursue the study of Sacred Theology in a scientific manner, one must reason to do so. Consequently, a solid grasp of the sciences which perfect the intellect and its use are necessary in order to do that well. 

Yes.
August 25 at 8:31am · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman The study of Sacred Theology is not necessary in order to be saved.
August 25 at 8:32am · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia so neither is metaphysics, on which Sacred Theology rests, NECESSARILY
August 25 at 8:32am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 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
August 25 at 8:35am · Like · 6

Daniel Lendman Yes, precisely Micheal.
August 25 at 8:40am · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick How do you address heresies without reason?
August 25 at 8:44am · Like · 3

Pater Edmund "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.
August 25 at 8:44am · Unlike · 9

Catherine Ryland 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.
August 25 at 8:51am · Unlike · 5

Michael Beitia You know, that's a pretty good quote:
"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.
August 25 at 8:54am · Unlike · 4

Michael Beitia (purely parenthetically - I'm still hoping for perfection)
August 25 at 8:55am · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman My personal favorite from Fides et Ratio (at least that pertains to this topic) is: "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.
August 25 at 9:17am · Like · 3

Michael Beitia now that's just silly Daniel, can't you see I just posted that?
August 25 at 9:21am · Unlike · 5

Daniel Lendman I am such a silly ass.
August 25 at 9:22am · Unlike · 5

Michael Beitia 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
August 25 at 9:28am · Unlike · 2

Michael Beitia *silly gnostic ass*
August 25 at 9:31am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 9:40am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Plus, if you go to TAC, odds are you're a complete jerk.
August 25 at 9:40am · Like

Michael Beitia how do you jive what you just wrote with the 5 times cited encyclical? (not the jerk part, I'll grant you that)
August 25 at 9:41am · Edited · Unlike · 2

Michael Beitia lemme distill:
"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."
August 25 at 9:42am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia "Philosophy....of being" = metaphysics
August 25 at 9:42am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Now, Lumen Fidei teaches that the act of love is the core of Faith.

But TAC responds, no, the act of reason is the core of faith and without it, faith would be impossible.

However, the Church teaches that right reason is impossible without grace, and a correct metaphysics is impossible without revelation.
August 25 at 9:47am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure So, Fides et Ratio is good counsel, but TAC goes off the deep end.
August 25 at 9:48am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Do you like putting words into our mouths?
August 25 at 9:48am · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia So you
August 25 at 9:53am · Like

Michael Beitia just dodge what people ask you?
August 25 at 9:53am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia 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
August 25 at 9:56am · Like · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick I think more terms have been added to the dance. I thought faith = faith = faith and nothing else was needed. But now faith has something else... Which is Love (or more properly, Charity).
August 25 at 9:58am · Unlike · 2

Michael Beitia "Fides et Ratio is good counsel"? Is that how you treat the extraordinary magisterium?
August 25 at 9:58am · Like · 1

Pater Edmund To be fair: "it does not suffice occasionally to clip the roots of the brambles, if the ground is not dug deeply so as to check them beginning again to multiply, and if there are not removed their seeds and root causes from which they grow so easily. That is why, since the prolonged study of human philosophy—which God has made empty and foolish, as the Apostle says, when that study lacks the flavouring of divine wisdom and the light of revealed truth—sometimes leads to error rather than to the discovery of the truth, we ordain and rule by this salutary constitution, in order to suppress all occasions of falling into error with respect to the matters referred to above, that from this time onwards none of those in sacred orders, whether religious or seculars or others so committed, when they follow courses in universities or other public institutions, may devote themselves to the study of philosophy or poetry for longer than five years after the study of grammar and dialectic, without their giving some time to the study of theology or pontifical law. Once these five years are past, if someone wishes to sweat over such studies, he may do so only if at the same time, or in some other way, he actively devotes himself to theology or the sacred canons; so that the Lord's priests may find the means, in these holy and useful occupations, for cleansing and healing the infected sources of philosophy and poetry." – Fifth Lateran Council
August 25 at 10:02am · Unlike · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 10:03am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It's sad they do not teach you about love at TAC.

Just Aristotle, and of course revelation would be impossible without the Philosopher; hence you are a bunch of jerks.
August 25 at 10:04am · Like

Katie Duda The message about love is clear- second semester junior year!
August 25 at 10:06am · Unlike · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure Thank you, Pater Edmund, for that lovely treatise on clipping brambles.
August 25 at 10:06am · Like

Catherine Ryland 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"
August 25 at 10:07am · Edited · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Well of course, Katie, the Church teaches that love comes from TAC's second semester in junior year. That's why you guys are the greatest EVER.
August 25 at 10:07am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Phil Colins? He was better when he just played the drums behind Peter Gabriel.
August 25 at 10:08am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I may be a total jerk (though I've never cited Aristoilet on this thread) but you don't seem to be acquitting yourself of jerkness too well either
August 25 at 10:08am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure St. Francis de Sales warns about dancing.
August 25 at 10:08am · Like

Catherine Ryland Yes, I thought it was heretical somehow.
August 25 at 10:09am · Like · 4

Jody Haaf Garneau Does Peregrine never sleep?
August 25 at 10:09am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia St Francis de Sales is Magisterium cathedrae magistralis, Lateran V is extraordinary
August 25 at 10:10am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 10:11am · Like

Michael Beitia did you read Pater Edmund's quote from Lateran V?
August 25 at 10:12am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Did you ever ponder what a big jerk you sound like?
August 25 at 10:12am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick No one said TAC was the greatest ever and without fault.
August 25 at 10:13am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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?
August 25 at 10:14am · Like

Michael Beitia and right reason is necessary for the science of the faith. not for faith, but for the science. jerk
August 25 at 10:15am · Like · 1

Katie Duda While excessive, this thread is quite a glimpse into the humor of the misunderstanding of the uses of language.
August 25 at 10:16am · Like · 5

Lauren Ogrodnick Wait a second... Ack never mind... I have a feeling you haven't been reading some of the responses...
August 25 at 10:16am · Like

Michael Beitia you're a jerk too Duda.
August 25 at 10:17am · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Hence the need for freshmen philosophy maybe?
August 25 at 10:18am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure But grace is needed for right reason.
August 25 at 10:23am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Faith is needed for right reason.
August 25 at 10:24am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Faith perfects reason.
August 25 at 10:24am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Faith comes from revelation and grace and assent, not reason.
August 25 at 10:24am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure And revelation takes the form of sacred theology in the sacred science of the Church.
August 25 at 10:26am · Like

Michael Beitia only because I have special revelation. without God informing me that there is a need to think discursively, I won't do it.
August 25 at 10:26am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Metaphysics aids sacred science, like a lowly handmaid.
August 25 at 10:26am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Metaphysics does not stand at the door, thumping her breast, like Kobe Bryant, asserting that she is necessary for sacred theology to be. Metaphysics, in other words, does not act like the typical TAC alum.
August 25 at 10:27am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Metaphysics does not thump her breast like LeBron James, as the founding persons of TAC have misrepresented her, those reactionaries.
August 25 at 10:30am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Bringing in Grace just makes things confusing. Grace is needed for Grace is needed for Grace is needed for Grace, but Free Will! Thankfully we can accept on faith Grace and Free Will, but without reason Augustine would have failed at bringing down heresies regarding these things.
August 25 at 10:30am · Like

Catherine Ryland On track for 3000. I can't believe you guys have had several threads of this. You must enjoy it very much.
August 25 at 10:32am · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Like a dog to my own vomit, I return to slay trolls
August 25 at 10:33am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 10:34am · Like

Catherine Ryland And you, O Peregrine, return to slay dragons and TACers.
August 25 at 10:35am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure And to set the world on fire, with love of Christ and his Blessed Mother, Mary, theotokos, conceived without sin.
August 25 at 10:36am · Like

Catherine Ryland I think that dog/vomit quote has been cited before. Has anyone noticed that thread is recursive? Has anyone noticed that this thread is recursive?
August 25 at 10:36am · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I think it's recursive
August 25 at 10:36am · Like · 4

Catherine Ryland I'm glad you have such a noble goal in calling people jerks.
August 25 at 10:36am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland I call people jerks out of love all the time.
August 25 at 10:36am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure I think those who think it is recursive are crass.
August 25 at 10:36am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure It is possible to call someone a jerk out of love. That word is not oustide the ball park. Other words are, though.
August 25 at 10:38am · Like

Catherine Ryland Like metaphysics?
August 25 at 10:38am · Edited · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick And who determines which words can be said out of love and which cannot?
August 25 at 10:38am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Words mean whatever you say they mean. Or else the magisterium.
August 25 at 10:38am · Edited · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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!
August 25 at 10:42am · Like

Edward Langley I thought this quote was interesting: "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
August 25 at 10:43am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 10:43am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick You really have not been reading the responses have you? Especially that of Daniel Lendman, Joshua Kenz and Pater Edmund
August 25 at 10:44am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 10:45am · Like

Catherine Ryland How about this. I am going to yell with love. "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."
August 25 at 10:45am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland YES! WORDS ARE NECESSARY TO THEOLOGY.
August 25 at 10:45am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I think we're agreeing.
August 25 at 10:46am · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 10:46am · Like

Joel HF The call of the cthreadulhu: "That thread is not dead, which can eternal lie. Yet with strange aeons even death may die." To gaze upon it, is to know madness, and to comment, is to never escape.
August 25 at 10:47am · Edited · Like · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick 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.
August 25 at 10:48am · Like

Timothy Moore

August 25 at 10:49am · Like · 3

Edward Langley 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
August 25 at 10:51am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure It is good counsel to study metaphysics, but sacred theology is fulfilled without it. In the order of learning, we would not get far in a theological discussion without first learning a language. But in the order of being, as things are in themselves, as God has made them, revelation and grace fulfill reason, not the other way around.

THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES AS SOMETHING WE MUST BELIEVE.

It is sad you do not know this, or regard phrases like order of nature and order of being as arbitrary toss around phrases. This discussion, these words and these truths have been around for centuries.

TAC IS TOO BUSY BOASTING TO TAKE PART IN THIS DISCUSSION.
August 25 at 10:51am · Like

Edward Langley And I might repeat that quote
August 25 at 10:51am · Like

Edward Langley until you get it.
August 25 at 10:51am · Like

Edward Langley (which would probably cause this thread to reach some kind of record)
August 25 at 10:52am · Like · 1

John Herreid Wow, this is still going? Should I crank up the Kajagoogoo and start trying to read it?
August 25 at 10:54am · Like · 1

Edward Langley 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.
August 25 at 10:55am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Ed, sacred theology takes a correct sapiential philosophy for granted, in the order of nature, in the order of learning. This is a correct statement. Just as it takes a correct grammar and language. This does not mean, as TAC wrongly asserts, that metaphysics is necessary for the FULFILLMENT of scred theology. 

On the contrary, in the order of being, ontologically and metaphysically, grace and revelation are the only things that are necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology; AND for the fulfillment of reason and a legitimate metaphysics.

THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES AS AN INFALLIBLE DOGMA.

You are twisting it because you have been brainwashed.
August 25 at 10:56am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick 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.
August 25 at 10:57am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Ed, the Faith of the Church is infallible. The Church is infallible in regards to faith and morals. This is also a dogma of the Church.
August 25 at 10:57am · Like

John Herreid

August 25 at 10:57am · Like · 3

Edward Langley It also might help you see that a Catholic education might be able to promote the Faith of the students without teaching sacred theology: for example one might call a certain course of studies in theoretical physics a "Catholic education" because it enables one to see that there are no scientific objections to the Faith. In fact, today, such an education might be the best education for a significant portion of students.
August 25 at 10:58am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Lauren, you are dismissing the correctness of my statements because you imagine someone named Josh to have debunked my claim. This is idiocy.
August 25 at 10:58am · Like

Catherine Ryland We've all been brainwashed by the magisterium.
August 25 at 10:58am · Like · 2

Edward Langley Pereventure, I don't think I've ever denied that, but perhaps I haven't repeated it dogmatically enough for you.
August 25 at 10:59am · Like · 1

Joel HF PB--where does has the Church defined what you claim it teaches? I'd like to see the magisterial statements upon which you base your claims.
August 25 at 10:59am · Edited · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick He likes putting words in people's mouths Edward.
August 25 at 11:00am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Ed, you might benefit from knowing that Catholic colleges err when they teach that sacred theology is fulfilled by metaphysics, instead of the deposit of the Faith.
August 25 at 11:00am · Like

Edward Langley 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.
August 25 at 11:00am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure How did I put words in anyone's mouth? Lauren, you are clearly unable to have a serious discussion. Do you think that order of being is not a legitimate theologival fact?
August 25 at 11:01am · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick 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!
August 25 at 11:02am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward, you have just lost an argument. In the order of being, revelation and grace perfect reason and fulfill sacred theology. This is what the Church teaches. TAC teaches the opposite.
August 25 at 11:02am · Edited · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Plus everyone else has used church documents etc to support their arguments. And you have not responded to direct and simple questions.
August 25 at 11:04am · Like

Catherine Ryland Faith is imperfect. That comes from St. Paul.
August 25 at 11:04am · Like · 2

Edward Langley Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
August 25 at 11:04am · Edited · Like · 2

Edward Langley I'm still waiting for your essay on the difference between the Beatific Vision and Faith in which you realize that, since Faith is not the Beatific Vision, it leaves room in the speculative order for fulfillment by the discourse of reason.
August 25 at 11:05am · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick 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 
August 25 at 11:06am · Edited · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland I think that's a really roundabout way of saying that you agree with him.
August 25 at 11:06am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 11:07am · Like

Edward Langley Lauren is worried about encouraging vanity, I think. She also is generally unwilling to admit that I'm ever right.
August 25 at 11:07am · Like · 1

Joel HF Still waiting on you, PB, for your magesterial sources. Care to cite a text or two?
August 25 at 11:07am · Edited · Like · 3

Edward Langley I Corinthians 13:12 videmus nunc per speculum in enigmate tunc autem facie ad faciem nunc cognosco ex parte tunc autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum
August 25 at 11:08am · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 11:08am · Like

Joel HF Peregrine, I don't speak for sacred science, nor do I speak for you. YOU go find texts for your positions.
August 25 at 11:10am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure "The fear of the Lord is wisdom."

"It is not flesh and blood which has revealed these things, but my Father in heaven."
August 25 at 11:10am · Like

Michael Beitia TAC isn't claiming that sacred theology would be unfulfilled without metaphysics. They are claiming (in line with the non-Scott magisterium) that Sacred theology is impossible without metaphysics
August 25 at 11:11am · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Oh yay! Now we are sola scriptura and taking verses all on their own! Very Catholic thing to do.
August 25 at 11:12am · Like · 1

Edward Langley http://memegenerator.net/instance/53763039

Y U disgrace me? | 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 11:12am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Peregrine Bonaventure Joel, if you call yourself Catholic, you should know the dogmas of the Church. If you have studied theology, you should know the principles of sacred theology. 

If TAC is claiming that sacred theology would be impossible without metaphysics, they are clearly wrong. This is the same thing as saying that Faith would be impossible without Reason, or that the supernatural comes from nature.
August 25 at 11:13am · Like

Edward Langley 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.
August 25 at 11:13am · Like · 2

Edward Langley So, is your position that "Sacred Theology == Faith"
August 25 at 11:14am · Like

Edward Langley If not, tell us how they differ.
August 25 at 11:14am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, you can.

No, that is not my position.
August 25 at 11:14am · Like

Edward Langley How do they differ? What does the notion of "Sacred Theology" add to the gift of faith? Promulgation by the magesterium? Or (GASP) reasoning?
August 25 at 11:15am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Faith is assent to the principles of sacred theology. Faith can also be assent to the principles of natural theology, if those are revealed and in the deposit of the faith. So you do not need to study metaphysics in order to have sacred theology.
August 25 at 11:15am · Like

Michael Beitia No, the conclusion of your argument is that metaphysics is not necessary for faith. you botched it again
August 25 at 11:16am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Sacred theology is the process by which we incorporate tradition into the development of doctrine.
August 25 at 11:16am · Like

Edward Langley That's a virtus dormitiva definition if I've ever seen one.
August 25 at 11:18am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure You do not need metaphysics for Faith or sacred theology. Not when the principles are revealed. There is an implicit reasonability to this sacred theology, but it does not necessarily follow from metaphysics; however a valid metaphysics necessarily follows from grace and revelation.
August 25 at 11:18am · Like

Edward Langley (Oh, I forgot that you don't approve of reading either Moliere or Nietzsche)
August 25 at 11:18am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland A what?
August 25 at 11:18am · Like

John Ruplinger Katherine, have we defined magesterium yet? Magesterially?
August 25 at 11:18am · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Ed, you are suceeding in your attempt to sound intelligent, but you are being a fool.
August 25 at 11:18am · Like

Michael Beitia ^Freudian projection?!
August 25 at 11:20am · Unlike · 2

Edward Langley 'How does opium induce sleep? "By means of a means (faculty)," namely the virtus dormitiva, replies the doctor in Moliere,

Quia est in eo virtus dormitiva,
Cujus est natura sensus assoupire.

But such replies belong to the realm of comedy.' -- Nietzsche, BG&E
August 25 at 11:20am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Thank you.
August 25 at 11:20am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Nietsche and Freud are irrelevant to this discussion. So, apparently, are you.
August 25 at 11:20am · Like

Michael Beitia Plus, Sacred Theology is not a process.
August 25 at 11:20am · Like · 1

Edward Langley Peregrine, the Stand-up Comedian
August 25 at 11:21am · Like · 1

Andrew Simone I'm reminded today why I don't miss this place.
August 25 at 11:21am · Like · 2

John Ruplinger maybe we should start a new thread of agreed upon definitions. Do we have any candidates? We could call it the thread that has no beginning.
August 25 at 11:21am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia thanks, Scott. I am an irrelevant heretical thug. You nailed it
August 25 at 11:22am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, it most certainly is a process. sacred theology is the process of going from things better known to things newly known and unfolding, in the order of grace. And this is the life of the Magisterium as it has unfolded in the fullness of time. You do not know what you are talking about. To say that sacred theology is not a process is to reduce revelation to imminantism, which is another heresy.
August 25 at 11:23am · Like

Edward Langley I think most of us are just amusing ourselves while we wait for you to answer approximately 500 questions.
August 25 at 11:23am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure You said it.
August 25 at 11:23am · Like

Michael Beitia STUDYING sacred theology is a process.
August 25 at 11:23am · Like

Catherine Ryland this thread is sempiternal. It's not possible to have a thread that has no beginning, because then there would be no first comment.
August 25 at 11:23am · Edited · Unlike · 2

Michael Beitia but don't confuse the science and the study of the science
August 25 at 11:23am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Sacred theology itself is a process. you are Ed are arrogant imbeciles. Material heretics.
August 25 at 11:24am · Like

Edward Langley Geometry is the process of going from things better known to things newly known and unfolding, in the order of shape.
August 25 at 11:24am · Like

Edward Langley Natural Philosophy is the process of going from things better known to things newly known and unfolding, in the order of motion.
August 25 at 11:24am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Geometry is in no way necessary to the Faith.
August 25 at 11:24am · Like

Michael Beitia knitting is the process of going from things better known to things newly known and unfolding, in the order of yarn
August 25 at 11:24am · Edited · Like · 2

Edward Langley Metaphysics is the process of going from things better known to things newly known and unfolding, in the order of being.
August 25 at 11:25am · Like

John Ruplinger that was my point Catherine.
August 25 at 11:25am · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Natural philosophy is in no way necessary to sacred theology.
August 25 at 11:25am · Like

Edward Langley Carpentry is the process of going from things better constructed to things newly constructed and unfolding in the order of wood.
August 25 at 11:25am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 11:25am · Like

Edward Langley I'm just illustrating the idiocy of your definition.
August 25 at 11:26am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward Langley is a fool in the process of being more foolish, in the order of nature.
August 25 at 11:26am · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia oh crap Perescott! You just claimed that Edward's being is his act of existing?!?! Now who's the material heretic!?
August 25 at 11:27am · Like · 2

Edward Langley The process I'm using is known as baculation
August 25 at 11:27am · Like

Edward Langley I learned it from Aristotle's Topics and Avicenna's metaphysics.
August 25 at 11:27am · Like

John Ruplinger 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?
August 25 at 11:28am · Unlike · 3

Clayton Brockman Well that escalated quickly. Good job with classing up the discussion.
August 25 at 11:28am · Edited · Unlike · 5

Edward Langley "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)
August 25 at 11:29am · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Saying that scared theology is a process is in no way idiocy. It illustrates that it begins with revealed principles which, in turn, inform metaphysics. It illustrates the error of saying that metaphysics fulfills sacred theology. In fact, the process goes the other way, grace perfecting nature.
August 25 at 11:29am · Like

Edward Langley We're asking you for a definition of a habit and you're defining an action.
August 25 at 11:30am · Like

Edward Langley If you had studied Aristotle's Categories better, you might realise your mistake.
August 25 at 11:31am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No, you are just being a fool.
August 25 at 11:32am · Like

John Ruplinger but mb, not only should pb assent to Edward then but also offer latreia. He is a very inconsistent heretic. 
August 25 at 11:35am · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia still, Scott, no one is saying that metaphysics perfects theology. You keep saying that
August 25 at 11:32am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, TAC states that metaphysics is the fulfillment of sacred theology, and that it is necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology.

It is important for Catholic students to develop a theological habit of mind. We do this by understanding how sacred theology works, in the life of the Magisterium.

TACs claim undermines this.
August 25 at 11:34am · Like

John Ruplinger 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?
August 25 at 11:39am · Like

Daniel Lendman The troll (sorry Catherine) makes no sense when he says that Sacred Theology is a process, especially since he has above called it a science. Science does not have motion, otherwise we would not know it, because it would be different, constantly. 

Moreover, I will go further than I have before. Since metaphysics is necessary for the study and comprehension and perfection of Sacred Theology, then so also is the philosophy of nature, and logic, and even some measure of all the liberal arts.
August 25 at 11:43am · Unlike · 3

Daniel Lendman There is a distinction between the order of learning and the order of being, but you are using it wrong, Scott.
August 25 at 11:44am · Unlike · 2

Daniel Lendman Geometry might not be necessary to faith, but it sure makes understanding faith better.
August 25 at 11:44am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 25 at 11:45am · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland It's really too bad that my interwebs addiction and a deep commitment to continuing this thread has coincided with a love of irrational argument, a severe case of insomnia, and a work deadline that isn't until sometime next week. (And all the usual real-life people I argue with being absent.)
August 25 at 11:47am · Edited · Unlike · 2

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 25 at 11:47am · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland No, don't worry, I am definitely a jerk too. And most certainly a heretic.
August 25 at 11:48am · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman I think you tried to be a jerk once, Catherine, and we all laughed. Your faults are other. 
August 25 at 11:49am · Like · 1

Edward Langley Well, I think this thread also proves that the premise isn't convertible.
August 25 at 11:49am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Clayton, I am afraid that this discussion will make poor material for your classes.
August 25 at 11:51am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure So, your argument is to pretend that you are smarter. It is like a little Potemkin village.

Sacred theology would be impossible without a lot of things. But the Church teaches that without revelation, grace and the sacred science, the sapiential sciences would err. This is our Faith. This is what the Church teaches.

TAC does not teach the Faith. It teaches a reactionary's version of Catholic academia.
August 25 at 11:53am · Like

Catherine Ryland Roma locuta est. Causa finita est.
August 25 at 11:54am · Like

Catherine Ryland And you better not think about that.
August 25 at 11:56am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel, weren't you the one claiming that order of being is a term being tossed around a few minutes ago?
August 25 at 11:56am · Like

Edward Langley Mr. Bonaventure, I think you might profit from the Seraphic Doctor's "De reductione artium ad theologiam". When I read it last semester, I remember thinking that it was the blue book before the blue book was a thing.
August 25 at 11:57am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Dude. That is not my argument.
August 25 at 11:57am · Like · 1

John Haggard I'm just trying to do my part to get this thread to 2500 comments.
August 25 at 11:58am · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure 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.
August 25 at 11:59am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Not only you defending such foolishness, you are defending it tooth and nail. Jerks.
August 25 at 11:59am · Like

Edward Langley Quod proferitur, refero
August 25 at 12:00pm · Edited · Like

Catherine Ryland Why do we need to call names again?
August 25 at 12:00pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
August 25 at 12:02pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel, forgive me you arrogant, misinformed Catholic, what is your argument? I'm sorry if I missed it. I must have mistaken it for drivel. But do tell.
August 25 at 12:02pm · Like

Catherine Ryland 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.
August 25 at 12:02pm · Like

Catherine Ryland But you can't consider anything revelation gives us about the Trinity unless you use your reason or rational faculty.
August 25 at 12:04pm · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman 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.
August 25 at 12:03pm · Edited · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland And reason about immaterial things is metaphysics.
August 25 at 12:03pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia the troll confuses "Tool" with "fulfillment" and applies it to TAC
August 25 at 12:04pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Because the only reasonable explanation you maintain such false pretences is because you are an arrogant jerk of a misinformed Catholic.
August 25 at 12:05pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Jerk, that's no argument.
August 25 at 12:05pm · Like

Michael Beitia where does it claim that metaphysics is the "fulfillment"? You keep adding that.
August 25 at 12:05pm · Like

Michael Beitia ^neither is that^
August 25 at 12:05pm · Like

Michael Beitia jerk
August 25 at 12:06pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure So what Catherine? 

Daniel, it is perfectly reasonable. You are incompetent.
August 25 at 12:06pm · Like

JA Escalante It's awesome that Peregrine is so loyally devoted to TAC that he has consecrated all his waking hours to amusing its alumni
August 25 at 12:07pm · Unlike · 7

Michael Beitia shhh you'll let him in on our gnosis
August 25 at 12:07pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley '"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 cognitionis interna sit, possumus tamen rationabiliter distinguere, ut dicamus, quod est lumen exterius, scilicet lumen artis mechanicae; lumen inferius, scilicet lumen cognitionis sensitivae; lumen interius, scilicet lumen cognitionis philosophicae; lumen superius, scilicet lumen gratiae et sacrae Scripturae. Primum lumen illuminat respectu figurae artificialis, secundum respectu formae naturalis, tertium respectu veritatis intellectualis, quartum et ultimum respectu veritatis salutaris.
...
Et sic patet, quomodo "multiformis sapientia Dei", quae lucide traditur in sacra Scriptura, occultatur in omni cognitione et in omni natura. Patet etiam, quomodo omnes cognitiones famulantur theologiae; et ideo ipsa assumit exempla et utitur vocabulis pertinentibus ad omne genus cognitionis. Patet etiam, quam ampla sit via illuminativa, et quomodo in omni re, quae sentitur sive quae cognoscitur, interius lateat ipse Deus. - Et hic est fructus omnium scientiarum, ut in omnibus aedificetur fides, "honorificetur Deus", componantur mores, hauriantur consolationes, quae sunt in unione sponsi et sponsae, quae quidem fit per caritatem, ad quam terminatur tota intentio sacrae Scripturae, et per consequens omnis illuminatio desursum descendens, et sine qua omnis cognitio vana est, quia nunquam pervenitur ad Filium nisi per Spiritum sanctum, qui docet nos omnem veritatem, "qui est benedictus in saecula saeculorum. Amen".
August 25 at 12:08pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley 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.
August 25 at 12:09pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley Especially this part: "And this is the fruit of all sciences, that in all of them Faith is built up"
August 25 at 12:11pm · Like · 2

Brian Gerrity Christendom's library is a nicer building than their church. Goes to show how they are the ones who in fact, value the intellect over the magisterium sacred tradition divine revelation church.
August 25 at 12:11pm · Unlike · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure In para 7 or section 7 of the TAC Charter, the college claims quite falsely that metaphysics is necessary for the fulfillment of sacred theology.

This passage has been quoted and cited about 10 times now.

It is telling how convenient it is for jerks and arrogant fools to ignore facts when it does not match their ignorance. 

You do not have the ability to discuss this.

Metaphysics in no way fulfills, informs, completes or perfects sacred theology. Metaphysics in itself would be useless without grace and the guidance of the sacred science.

This is what the Church teaches in Her dogma.
August 25 at 12:13pm · Like

Edward Langley If that's the case, why does the Tradition use the analogy of the mind to illuminate the doctrine of the Trinity?
August 25 at 12:15pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley (The other reason to read the Seraphic Doctor is that his Latin prose is amazing)
August 25 at 12:15pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure In matters of Faith and the sacred science, and the principles thereof, Catholic thinkers go by what the Church teaches, not by what some reactionaries dreamed up in the 60s.
August 25 at 12:16pm · Like

John Ruplinger Love that quote, Edward. Is that Bonaventure?
August 25 at 12:17pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Metaphysics IS useless without grace because then it is the highest science w/o qualification. With Sacred Theology it is useful.
August 25 at 12:17pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley Sure, and there is a host of Fathers and Doctors of the Church who use the various philosophical theories of the mind to illumine the doctrine of the Trinity.
August 25 at 12:17pm · Like

Edward Langley John R, yes.
August 25 at 12:18pm · Like

Daniel Lendman A queen can't do anything without servants.
August 25 at 12:18pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante do I really have to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia again
August 25 at 12:18pm · Like

Edward Langley No, I think it's time to repeat Fides et Ratio.
August 25 at 12:19pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Because you are stuck in the previous millenium and you do not know what you are talking about because you desire first to seem intelligent but come across as an arrogant fool.
August 25 at 12:19pm · Like

Edward Langley "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
August 25 at 12:20pm · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Arrogant, maybe. Not a fool.
August 25 at 12:20pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
August 25 at 12:20pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger what he says there underlies some things I have said herein. Have you a translation for the benefit of the rest? (Faith illuminates all things. Our assent is liberating. Dissent enslaves.)
August 25 at 12:20pm · Edited · Like

Edward Langley Peregrine, do you know who the "innovatores" are? Let me give you a hint, the Church doesn't consider that term to be complimentary.
August 25 at 12:20pm · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland P.S. We hit 2500 a while back. Did anyone already mention that?
August 25 at 12:20pm · Edited · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure The Catholic Encyclopedia and Faith and Reason do not contradict the Churches dogma on grace perfecting nature and revelation being necessary for all knowledge.

TAC does.
August 25 at 12:20pm · Like

Edward Langley Unfortunately, I do not, John R.
August 25 at 12:21pm · Like

Daniel Lendman I have already explained the grace perfecting nature bit. Do I need to do it again?
August 25 at 12:21pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland No, no, you have to be stuck in an even more previous millenium.
August 25 at 12:21pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward, you are an arrogant boy who lacks the skill and authority to make such judgements.
August 25 at 12:22pm · Like

Catherine Ryland That is an ad hominem statement.
August 25 at 12:23pm · Edited · Like · 3

Edward Langley "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."

So, what JPII says is that, without philosophy we cannot discuss certain theological issues such as:

1) the use of language to speak about God
2) the personal relations within the Trinity
3) God's creative activity in the world
4) the relationship between God and man
5) Christ's identity as true God and true man.

Well, I guess that means that philosophy "in no way fulfills, informs, completes or perfects sacred theology." It must be the case that discussing these issues is completely irrelevant to Sacred Theology.
August 25 at 12:24pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Edward Langley has one of the finest and clearest minds I have ever encountered.
August 25 at 12:24pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante Catherine havent you figured this out? Peregrine "answers" all arguments by simply denying them, and his other move is ad hominem. He's only got two
August 25 at 12:24pm · Unlike · 5

Edward Langley I admit that I lack the skill to make judgments, that's a long hard road to travel: I've barely begun deciding how to judge logical and mathematical problems, to say nothing about natural philosophy, metaphysics and sacra doctrina.
August 25 at 12:25pm · Like

Edward Langley And I suppose I only have authority to make such judgments when dealing with my son.
August 25 at 12:26pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman So, I like what I said about grace perfecting nature, so I will say it again: 

Grace, in this case faith, perfects nature, in this case metaphysics. This is where babies come fro... I mean, this is where Sacred Theology comes from.
August 25 at 12:26pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Grace perfecting nature. Revelation perfecting reason. Sacred theology perfecting metaphysics, not the other way around. You cannot study theology without studying the Church and Her dogmas.

It is impossible to study this without that underscores the implicit reasonability. It does not mean you have to read Aristotle to get sacred theology right.

TAC gets it very wrong.
August 25 at 12:27pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel, grace does not perfect metaphysics. You make it sound like if you pray and attend Mass, God will give you grace to get metaphysics right and fulfill sacred theology. In fact, this is what the founders of TAC tell you.

in fact, the sacred science perfects metaphysics, the higher perfecting the lower, so that it is useful. This is why you should study more doctrine at TAC.

Again, this is what the Church teaches de fidei.

TAC gets it wrong.
August 25 at 12:29pm · Edited · Like

Catherine Ryland No you certainly don't. That is not what anyone is saying.
August 25 at 12:29pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Okay, imagine this. Imagine there was nothing to perfect. So, in this case, no metaphysics. Okay, now what would faith do? There is nothing to perfect, so there is no grace operating, so there is no Sacred Theology and it all goes to pot.
August 25 at 12:30pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley Distinguish the speculative and practical orders:

In the practical order, Faith is all that is necessary for the intellect, since good action doesn't require one to know why what one is doing is the right thing to do: all one needs is certitude about the right course of action.

In the speculative order, Faith helps but cannot suffice because when the intellect knows _that_ something is true it seeks to know _why_ it is true. Ultimately, that "why" is hidden in this life "underneath the veil" but we can approximate it by calling upon the aid of philosophy.

You would be on much firmer ground if you deny that Sacred Theology is a speculative science: that is, after all, the position of Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Scotus and the Franciscan school. But if you admit that there is a speculative science of Sacred Theology, faith cannot suffice for the perfection of that science.
August 25 at 12:31pm · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Scott. you have so many intelligent, thoughtful, patient, and well-read people, arguing against you. 

Does that give you any pause?
August 25 at 12:31pm · Like · 1

Dylan Naegele Having gone to TAC, it was probably inevitable that this fascinating monstrosity of a Scott Pilgrim Versus TAC would make it on to my news feed, despite my not knowing Mr. Peterson. Since I don't want to re-read a threat that looks longer and even more convoluted than the City of God, can someone explain:

1. Who is "Peregrine Bonaventure"? (maybe you can!)
2. What is his connection to TAC?
3. Why he is obsessed TAC including metaphysics in the curriculum?
4. Whether he is employed or has a life outside of this thread?
August 25 at 12:32pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley God's grace is primarily concerned with the practical order, since he gives us grace to save us. So, it's right to say that metaphysics doesn't percfect faith in that order. But it's foolish to think that faith can satisfy man's desire to know the cause: go that route and you turn into Kierkegaard.
August 25 at 12:32pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley Dylan
1) he's Scott Weinberg, I think, a troll who lives on stalking TACers.
2) he tried freshman year repeatedly
3) he thinks he's the pope
4) ...
August 25 at 12:34pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Dylan, 
Peregrine Bonaventure is Scott Weinberg 
He was asked to leave TAC some years ago by Dr. Kaiser. He finished up his education at Christendom.
August 25 at 12:34pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Beat me, Edward.
August 25 at 12:34pm · Like

Dylan Naegele Ah. Thanks. This makes more sense now.
August 25 at 12:35pm · Like

Daniel Lendman I said this over 2,000 comments ago, so it bears repeating. 
TAC is the best!!! 
I am the best!!!! 
USA! USA! USA!
August 25 at 12:36pm · Unlike · 2

Edward Langley (taking best inclusively to mean "that than which there is no greater")
August 25 at 12:36pm · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Did you just say Daniel is fat?
August 25 at 12:37pm · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Oh and if anyone is interested in Zoroastrianism (I am.) This is cool:

http://kaogu.net.cn/.../Academic.../2014/0815/47198.html

Chinese Archaeology
kaogu.net.cn
August 25 at 12:37pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Ed, you state that it is "foolish to think that faith can satisfy man's desire to know the cause." This completely contradicts Scripture. You are an arrogant fool. You have lost this argument.

Anyone would be blessed to not go to TAC.

And why do you continue to assert that I am someone who I am not. I know Scot Weinberg. He finished his education with a masters degree in Literature and Rhetoric at CUA.
August 25 at 12:38pm · Like

JA Escalante ^ ^ Thanks for the hat tip, Daniel! Geez
August 25 at 12:38pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman That's where I found it!
August 25 at 12:38pm · Like · 1

Dylan Naegele If you aren't that one guy, then who are you?
August 25 at 12:39pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Sorry JA Escalante, I couldn't remember who had posted the article..
August 25 at 12:39pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante I was just joshing you anyhow
August 25 at 12:40pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman So, just and FYI, no where in Scripture does it say that Faith satisfies man's desire to know the cause.
August 25 at 12:40pm · Unlike · 2

Daniel Lendman Faith pushes us to go beyond. We long to see The Cause, who is Love Himself.
August 25 at 12:41pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley 'Peregrine Bonaventure Ed, you state that it is "foolish to think that faith can satisfy man's desire to know the cause." This completely contradicts Scripture. You are an arrogant fool. You have lost this argument.'

If this were so, then who would need the Beatific Vision?
August 25 at 12:41pm · Like · 1

Dylan Naegele And Peregrine/Scott/Whoever You Are, could you do me the small favor of laying your argument out in a clear, logical fashion? At the moment, you seem to resemble the people who stand on street corners with megaphones yelling gibberish about heaven and hell rather than someone who claims to understand the correct method to study theology?
August 25 at 12:42pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley And, just for kicks, I hereby declare that Peregrine NottheSeraphicDoctor has lost the argument.
August 25 at 12:42pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Dylan, you have no idea what you are asking for. But, if he won't, I will dive back into the abyss and pull them up for you.
August 25 at 12:43pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Oh, and per our conversation above, we could replace second semester Senior year lab with this! 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../measure-speed-of-light...

Joel HF, Pater Edmund, Catherine Ryland

Here's How To Calculate The Speed Of Light In Your Own Home
www.huffingtonpost.com
You may think your microwave is good only for making popcorn or heating up last night's leftovers. But with a big chocolate bar and a little ingenuity, you can use use your microwave to calculate the speed of light. "It's possible to measure ...
August 25 at 12:44pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante Ladies and gents, 3000 is within our grasp!
August 25 at 12:44pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Ed, it is by grace that we come to Beatitude, not reason.

Your assertions are almost unbelievable.
August 25 at 12:47pm · Like

John Ruplinger my favorite quote was of the Seraphic doctor by Edward. Bonaventure wins! Argumentum finitum est. Bonaventura locutus est.
August 25 at 12:48pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley I explicitly said that i.e. "in the practical order . . ."
August 25 at 12:48pm · Like

Edward Langley Unless you think that we are saved by the perfection of our speculative intellect.
August 25 at 12:48pm · Like · 1

Brian Gerrity Here's my summary of the Peregrine argument to this point.
TAC is a heresy factory.
You are all products TAC.
Therefore you are all heretics.
Quod erat demonstrandum, losers!!!
August 25 at 12:49pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel, I have laid out the argument 15 times now. Surely, you are being disingenuous.

TAC claims that metaphysics is necessary to fulfill sacred theology. These are the words TAC uses.

The Church teaches de fidei that the opposite is true. TAC gets it wrong. This leads to intellectual imperfection, arrogance, etc.

I am glad I did not go to TAC.

This is the argument.
August 25 at 12:51pm · Like

John Ruplinger Actually i think some of pb's concern's might be corroborated if pb would listen and engage in discussion. IE. Corrobated in the bonaventure quote.
August 25 at 12:51pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Ed, it doesn't matter what order you are talking about. When you deny that man is saved and perfected by supernatural grace, when you deny that everything in nature is perfected by grace, you are talking jibberish.
August 25 at 12:53pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Blue Book quote: 

"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."
August 25 at 12:55pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No, here again is the argument.

TAC teaches that metaphysics is necessary to perfect sacred theology.

This claim is false. This claim is the contrary of the Catholic dogma on sacred theology and revelation. 

TAC teaches a heresy.

Its students are crass.

I am very lucky I did not go there.
August 25 at 12:55pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, the quote is false. It contradicts the Faith.
August 25 at 12:56pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Full development certainly does not mean perfection.
August 25 at 12:57pm · Like

John Ruplinger long ago now found two causes of all the fuss: one,the magesterium no longer using definitions and secondly tac's own unorthodox mutant producing biochemistry: heresy petri dish + substance d + pb = ptacd troll
August 25 at 12:59pm · Edited · Like · 1

Edward Langley "Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds."
August 25 at 12:59pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley What do you think of that O-One-who-is-not-the-Seraphic-Doctor?
August 25 at 1:00pm · Like

Daniel Lendman I believe this is the text Scott is referencing:
"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."
-BK VII of the On Equal Footing to the Infallible Magesteirum Blue Book
August 25 at 1:00pm · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman Shoot! I included the whole title!! I have given away the game guys. Sorry.
August 25 at 1:01pm · Like

Edward Langley I want Peregrine's opinion on this: "Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds."
August 25 at 1:01pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Metaphysics is not necessary for the perfection of theology. Natural theology is not necessary for the full development of the sacred science.

The contrary is true.

Hence, without knowledge of what the Church teaches in Her dogmatic theology, you err in your metaphysics.

This is the error of TAC.

You presume to understand the higher science, without studying it and the dogmas of the Church, while advancing boldly on a flawed metaphysical path.

This leads to arrogance and foolishness.
August 25 at 1:01pm · Like

Edward Langley Especially the "right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things"
August 25 at 1:02pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante "full development" isn't "intrinsic perfection"
August 25 at 1:03pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante it's meant in the sense of "articulation as sacred science". unless you're committed to tendentious reading
August 25 at 1:03pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Even matter is necessary for form (of a material substance) to be properly fulfilled.
August 25 at 1:04pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Scott would know that if he studied the philosophy of Nature.
August 25 at 1:05pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure You need grace to reason correctly, Edward. Then, and only then, is there a synthesis. 

Thomas seemed reasonably to err in Faith on more than one subject.

But in the sciences, the sacred science brings metaphysics to completion. Not the other way around.
August 25 at 1:05pm · Like

Edward Langley Do you think my quote is true?
August 25 at 1:05pm · Like

Edward Langley "Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds."
August 25 at 1:06pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante As I've said over and over, theology is not constituted by metaphysics plus revelation in a partim/partim relation. In a way, theology does presuppose the truths of metaphysics and even carries them within itself, but *not* in the fully articulate forms of science. Thus, theology needs metaphysics to articulate itself *as a science*. This is what the citations I've given all say, and what I say, and what TAC says.
August 25 at 1:07pm · Like · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure Full development is the same thing as perfection. But metaphysics does not even contribute to the partial development of the sacred science. It might seem like this historically, but this would be revisionist. Sacred theology has always guided and perfected metaphysics. This is why you need to study more doctrine.
August 25 at 1:08pm · Like

Edward Langley You haven't answered my question, Peregrine
August 25 at 1:08pm · Like

JA Escalante Full development is not the same thing as *intrinsic* perfection. It is a sort of accidental perfection, articulation as a discursive science.
August 25 at 1:09pm · Like · 3

Edward Langley Does "right reason establish the foundation of faith" or not?
August 25 at 1:09pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman That is why I used the matter form analogy.
August 25 at 1:09pm · Like

JA Escalante wow I never thought in my life that the words "this is what I say, and this is what TAC says" would ever be uttered by me
August 25 at 1:10pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure JA, the college says that you need to study metaphysics because this is necessary for the full development of sacred theology. This underscores the pedagogy of the college. It is a false and erroneous teaching method, because it produces flawed conclusions. It prodices flawed conclusions because, as the Church teaches, the sacred science perfects metaphysics.
August 25 at 1:11pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Edward, I think you are being ignored.
August 25 at 1:11pm · Like

JA Escalante Peregrine you crack me up. Do you ever actually respond to an argument, or do you just reassert your cranky position over and over?
August 25 at 1:11pm · Unlike · 3

John Ruplinger i can not even imagine what pb is saying anymore. How many ways\ times and with how many authorities can one make the same distinction? Even Meno would have grasped it by now. Does this prove (in the concrete as Newman might say) my opinining long ago that theology can be dangerous for a layman?
August 25 at 1:12pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante Peregrine you crack me up. Do you ever actually respond to an argument, or do you just reassert your cranky position over and over?
August 25 at 1:12pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante oh I forgot, you also resort to name-calling
August 25 at 1:12pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Right reason does NOT establish the foundation of Faith. Assent to revealed supernatural truths DOES establish the foundation of Faith and these truths are the principles of sacred theology.
August 25 at 1:13pm · Like

Edward Langley Well, then you're a material heretic: that quotation was from Vatican I.
August 25 at 1:14pm · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure JA, you are the one who is not responding.
August 25 at 1:14pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Edward, that was a gotcha argument, underhanded, and dirty. I really liked it.
August 25 at 1:14pm · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman Scott, the appropriate response is silence.
August 25 at 1:15pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Or recant?
August 25 at 1:15pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure That's false Edward, and you take Vat I out of context. Right reason is an effect of assent to Faith, which is clearly the foundation of the Faith.
August 25 at 1:15pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Catherine, you should be a part of this.
August 25 at 1:15pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Scott, that wasn't one of the 2 options.
August 25 at 1:16pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley If he doesn't recant, I believe the conditions for formal heresy are met. In which case, we should get out our steaks.
August 25 at 1:16pm · Like

JA Escalante so is Peregrine a Fideist?
August 25 at 1:16pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante is that what they do at Christendom?
August 25 at 1:16pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Yep.
August 25 at 1:16pm · Like

JA Escalante I see.
August 25 at 1:16pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure The Foundation of the Faith is assent to God's revealed Word. It is not a valid syllogism, Edward. You are misguided. 

Sorry.
August 25 at 1:17pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Here is context:
The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that
there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct
not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object. With regard to the source,
we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. With regard to the object,
besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God
which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known. Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things29, comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ30, he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God31. And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones32. Now reason,
does indeed
when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve
by God's gift some understanding,
and that most profitable, of the mysteries,
whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connexion of these mysteries
with one another and with the final end of humanity; 

but reason

is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object. For
the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight33. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since
it is the same God
who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either
the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false34. Furthermore the church which,
together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has
by divine appointment
the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit35. Hence all faithful Christians
are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith,
particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for
on the one hand right reason
established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith
delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds. Hence, so far is the church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For
she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace. Nor does the church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method:
but while she admits this just freedom, she takes particular care that they do not
become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or, by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and engender confusion. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. 

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
August 25 at 1:17pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante take THAT, Vatican I !
August 25 at 1:17pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure We'll can talk about more TAC errors later.

Gotta go.
August 25 at 1:18pm · Like

Daniel Lendman That is close enough to silence, I suppose.
August 25 at 1:18pm · Unlike · 2

Bekah Sims Andrews It would explain how he knows TAC is a factory of heretics. As he is one......
August 25 at 1:19pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley .
4. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him.
5. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise.
-- Proverbs, 26
August 25 at 1:20pm · Edited · Like · 2

Edward Langley Ooh look, a contradiction.
August 25 at 1:21pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Now that he is gone, it might have been this sort of thing that he is thinking TAC says:
"For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
August 25 at 1:21pm · Like

Daniel Lendman But here is where I think that JA Escalante's distinction and my matter form analogy come in.
August 25 at 1:22pm · Like

Edward Langley Yeah, I saw that. That, however, seems to operate at the level of principles.
August 25 at 1:22pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Catherine, this might be what you were saying too.
August 25 at 1:22pm · Like

Edward Langley That is, the principles are more perfect than the rest of the science since they contain the whole science.
August 25 at 1:23pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman I think you are right.
August 25 at 1:23pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante yes I said that earlier, about how theology carries or presupposes the truths of metaphysics principially within itself, but not in the form of articulate science
August 25 at 1:24pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I should have broken up that VI quote.
August 25 at 1:25pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante clearly "full development" is being used by TAC in the Newmanian sense, and nowhere is it being asserted that without metaphysics theology is doomed to intrinsic imperfection
August 25 at 1:25pm · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman I could have added more to the comment count.
August 25 at 1:25pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Reason guided by God's grace is right reason and this can serve as a basis of Faith, is what Vat I says.

BTW, we wouldn't be a 3000 posts if you did not recognise that objections to TAC are morally and scientifically valid.
August 25 at 1:26pm · Like

JA Escalante ^another fake goodbye
August 25 at 1:26pm · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman <sigh>
August 25 at 1:26pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Scott, I agree, your questions are good and important. I just want you to use your reason and get beyond the questions once in a while.
August 25 at 1:27pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger i like to translate the word meno as "i am stuck". I wonder if its the origin of stick in the mud. Mud flinging stick in the mud. O tempora o mores!
August 25 at 1:28pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I have benefited greatly from thinking about this sort of question, but it just gets to be a little boring saying the same thing. At least you could bring to bear different arguments to obstinately hold your position.
August 25 at 1:28pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger what are his good assertions?
August 25 at 1:29pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I think I'd agree that it is reason guided by God's grace that is right reason. That makes sense to me.
August 25 at 1:29pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger me too Daniel. BUT i only get the reasoned side.
August 25 at 1:31pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Well, I suppose it is only really one assertion of his. Scott says this:
"the college says that you need to study metaphysics because this is necessary for the full development of sacred theology. This underscores the pedagogy of the college. It is a false and erroneous teaching method, because it produces flawed conclusions. It prodices flawed conclusions because, as the Church teaches, the sacred science perfects metaphysics."

I think that raises some good questions.
August 25 at 1:31pm · Like

Daniel Lendman The problem is that he has stated that same thing in response to nearly every argument.
August 25 at 1:32pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman When he doesn't do that he does: 
"The Foundation of the Faith is assent to God's revealed Word. It is not a valid syllogism, Edward. You are misguided." 
and
"Full development is the same thing as perfection. But metaphysics does not even contribute to the partial development of the sacred science. It might seem like this historically, but this would be revisionist. Sacred theology has always guided and perfected metaphysics. This is why you need to study more doctrine."
and
"Because the only reasonable explanation you maintain such false pretences is because you are an arrogant jerk of a misinformed Catholic."
etc.
August 25 at 1:35pm · Like

John Ruplinger if he works at it, i see potential for a modern Zeno there. EDIT i only meant the prior post. The latter reveal teansy perhaps flaws in logic. Yowsers!
August 25 at 1:39pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia no, we're just bored and modern life separates the individual into atomistic trolling units
August 25 at 1:36pm · Edited · Like · 3

John Ruplinger good questions buried in a heap of fallacies maybe.
August 25 at 1:41pm · Like

Catherine Ryland "no, we're just bored and modern life separates the individual into atomistic trolling units" tha't's what I've been thinking. Loneliness that isn't really helped by real contact with other people, and a desire for notifications. (I speak of myself here of course, unless others find it applies to them.)
August 25 at 1:47pm · Edited · Like · 3

Michael Beitia they are excellent questions, but they never get beyond that.
August 25 at 1:44pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia And I'm STILL waiting for perfection (8128)
August 25 at 1:44pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia and Catherine, I'm at work now, blowing it off
August 25 at 1:44pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund Or this: «It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity"[2] can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches.[3] For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived?»
August 25 at 1:45pm · Edited · Like · 2

John Ruplinger pater i will respond to your much above post. Later.
August 25 at 1:47pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure If TAC did not believe that sacred theology is doomed without metaphysics, and if it believed as the Church teaches that metaphysics is doomed without grace and revelation and the doctrinally imbued sacred science of the Church... Then why do they say that metaphysics is necessary for the full development of sacred theology, and why do they not teach the principles of the Faith?

Clearly the founders were reactionary, and agenda and ideologically driven.
August 25 at 1:47pm · Like

Joel HF Some one should inform the real Scott Weinberg that this pb fellow, who definitely isn't SW, had been using a picture of Weinberg as his profile pic.
August 25 at 1:48pm · Like · 3

Edward Langley Get out the bell, book and candle
August 25 at 1:48pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Joel, some time ago several of us attempted rational discourse with this SW fellow on the infinitely patient FerrierFB. JAson has it right. No point
August 25 at 1:50pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger no i never got that courtesy Edward
August 25 at 1:50pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I wonder what Matthew J. Peterson's Klout score is now?
August 25 at 1:51pm · Like · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick Just want to give a late high five to Edward Langley for the Vatican 1 quote. (Only time I will ever do so too  )
August 25 at 1:52pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman hmm... Catherine Ryland do you see how he does things?
August 25 at 1:54pm · Like

Daniel Lendman TAC says it because:
"Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for
on the one hand right reason
established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith
delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds. Hence, so far is the church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways."
August 25 at 1:55pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Oh, and because it is true.
August 25 at 1:55pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger WOULD someone list his better questions. I am at an impass guessing. please and only if u have time 
August 25 at 1:58pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Hey, if I could have a face to face with these 210 participants I would. It does not mean the dialogue is meaningless. It is important to hash this out, not that the college will change its curriculum, but maybe its students will have a more informed understanding of the flaws of their curriculum -- for they go beyond limitations and become flaws -- and better appreciation of the Catholic Faith. In the academic life, sacred theology -- based on what the Church teaches -- sets the soul free and is the completion of Catholic liberal education. 

The quotation from Pater Edmund is good. Every Catholic student should think about that.
August 25 at 2:01pm · Like

Daniel Lendman And he calls me arrogant?
August 25 at 2:02pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman You think that anything that TAC teaches or that we have been saying here contradicts the quote from Pater Edmund?!?!?
August 25 at 2:03pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley I think we should all meet up at a bar somewhere in DC and have a fistfight to resolve the dispute 
August 25 at 2:04pm · Like · 3

Edward Langley ... that is have a conversation over beer.
August 25 at 2:05pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Maybe Scott, you should find out who said the above quote by Pater Edmund and find out its proper context.
August 25 at 2:06pm · Like

Daniel Lendman This happens in the previous paragraph:

"Without doubt, nothing more insane than such a doctrine, nothing more impious or more opposed to reason itself could be devised. For although faith is above reason, no real disagreement or opposition can ever be found between them; this is because both of them come from the same greatest source of unchanging and eternal truth, God. They give such reciprocal help to each other that true reason shows, maintains and protects the truth of the faith, while faith frees reason from all errors and wondrously enlightens, strengthens and perfects reason with the knowledge of divine matters."
August 25 at 2:07pm · Edited · Like · 2

John Ruplinger @ 1000 in a day. Pausing to appreciate the geometric increase. (Is that cartesian or euclidean?)
August 25 at 2:08pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I think it is Francois de Viete
August 25 at 2:14pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia it is a square-squared-cube
August 25 at 2:15pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I think that's why modern algebraic notation got popular, ever try to draw any of Viete's figures with a number larger than 3?
August 25 at 2:17pm · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Yes.
August 25 at 2:18pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman It is hard.
August 25 at 2:18pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I tried 5 once and quickly gave up
August 25 at 2:19pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel, quote below states that faith perfects reason. This means, without faith, metaphysics is flawed. This does not mean that God gives TAC students grace so that they have perfect reason. I think you think this. This is effectively how TAC teaches. What this means is through a study of sacred theology, and the sacred science of the Church, and through an outlay of Her dogmas, a theological habit of mind is developed. This is liberal education. This is not what TAC proposes, because it does not teach sacred theology. And not teaching it, or allowing its students to understand how Her teachings operate, it moves ahead with a flawed metaphysics. This is self-evident in the principles of its Charter and in the holes in its curriculum.
August 25 at 2:20pm · Like

Michael Beitia says you
August 25 at 2:21pm · Like

John Ruplinger dont know Viete. I prefer now the hotdog and smiley face symbols long above mentioned. If it cant be done so i suspect its understandability.
August 25 at 2:23pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia he's the founder of modern algebra. Pre-dates Descartes
August 25 at 2:27pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland yes, but he's not in the program, ergo he doesn't exist.
August 25 at 2:28pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia beautiful stuff... but x^4 is a "squared-square" x^5 is a "Squared-cube" and so on. You can draw it pretty easily with powers of 2
August 25 at 2:28pm · Like

Michael Beitia THEY CUT VIETE!?
August 25 at 2:29pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia bastards. Perescott is right. TAC's curriculum is screwed
August 25 at 2:29pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman No. Viete is in the program.
August 25 at 2:31pm · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Viete was there in 2012.
August 25 at 2:32pm · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Catherine, I think you had the wrong tutor.
August 25 at 2:32pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia thanks, Daniel..... whew..... there is no way to study the fullness of Sacred Theology without Viete
August 25 at 2:32pm · Like · 4

John Ruplinger Did Viette merge geometry and arithmetic? Or was that Descartes?
August 25 at 2:32pm · Like

Michael Beitia Viete started it. Also nascent algebraic notation
August 25 at 2:32pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia he standardized using certain letters for constants, and others for variables
August 25 at 2:34pm · Edited · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick So what exactly is a Fideist? Aside from the obvious part. (Alex concluded that our friend was one a few days ago, but now I want some clarity as to what exactly that means and how the Church has responded)
August 25 at 2:34pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Okay, maybe the name sounds vaguely familiar. No, not really. I forget most things, and I wanted to make a Descartes joke.
August 25 at 2:34pm · Edited · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Oh dear. I'm going to have to give this terrible thread up for lent.
August 25 at 2:36pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Lent? I was going to try for advent
August 25 at 2:37pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley Well, it's a good thing lent is several months away.
August 25 at 2:37pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Holy moly, this thread is still going?!?!
August 25 at 2:42pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Yeah, you missed 2000 scintillating points of interest
August 25 at 2:43pm · Like · 3

Isak Benedict Yeah I bet. Is the troll dead yet?
August 25 at 2:43pm · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick Define "going"
August 25 at 2:44pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia no, alive and well maybe 30 up from here
August 25 at 2:45pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Well, currently recovering from Ed's Vatican I quote and smack down.
August 25 at 2:46pm · Like

John Ruplinger is that what votis refers to? Hmmm. . . disappearing papal decrees.
August 25 at 2:59pm · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure "Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand." -- St. Anselm
August 25 at 3:13pm · Like

Michael Beitia ^Magisterium cathedrae magistralis^
August 25 at 3:22pm · Like

Catherine Ryland JUST IN! Here's the official word. Absolutely no saints at TAC or Christendom. Not even mentioned. Because of our incessant bickering, we are left entirely out of the book of life. https://app.box.com/s/1561ypqh86kf3vq3mlpx

BC_Saints.jpg - File Shared from Box
app.box.com
August 25 at 3:28pm · Unlike · 3

John Ruplinger i think we have a couple popes though.
August 25 at 3:32pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley I wonder how Peregrine gets along with Pope Michael.
August 25 at 3:34pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Saints!? Now who's trying to immanentize the eschaton......
August 25 at 3:38pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley Comments in the vertical axis, time (in seconds) in the horizontal axis:

August 25 at 3:40pm · Like · 4

Edward Langley Looks like exponential growth to me.
August 25 at 3:40pm · Like · 5

Daniel P. O'Connell At this rate we'll hit 3,000 before 12 midnight tonight.
August 25 at 3:41pm · Like

Michael Beitia is past behavior a predictor of future success? Cause I've got Mass tonight at 7
August 25 at 3:43pm · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland NOW I remember Viete. He was less terrifying than the other blokes.
August 25 at 3:43pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Again?
August 25 at 3:43pm · Like

Catherine Ryland I thought you just went yesterday.
August 25 at 3:43pm · Edited · Like · 1

Edward Langley The next power of two is 4096
August 25 at 3:44pm · Like

Michael Beitia but is 4096-1 prime?
August 25 at 3:44pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley No: 4095 / 5 = 819 * 5
August 25 at 3:45pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia every 25th of the month there's a votive Mass in honor of the Divine Infant King at my parish
August 25 at 3:45pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia it lacks the root of perfection....
August 25 at 3:46pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Having read every comment on this thread so far, I am amazed at your guys' patience to argue to the same point over and over again to someone who you know won't listen. That said, he has provoked a number of good and informative comments from you guys that have made this thread (almost) worth the time spent on it. I admire your guys' patience; I get frustrated just reading it.
August 25 at 3:46pm · Like · 7

Edward Langley 4095 = 3 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 13
August 25 at 3:46pm · Like

Daniel Lendman Edward Langley, you graph is the coolest thing I have yet seen on this thread.
August 25 at 3:47pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia 33550336 is the fifth.... that means 8191 is the next root of perfection
August 25 at 3:47pm · Like

Sean Robertson And this thread can't end until...

http://youtu.be/SiMHTK15Pik

Its Over 9000!!! [Original Video and Audio]
The classic, its over 9000!!! video without anything extra.
August 25 at 3:49pm · Edited · Like · 3

Sean Robertson So we've got some work to do.
August 25 at 3:50pm · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Yeah, bit now I have posted the coolest thing on this thread that is about theology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmeqSzvIFs

Emo Philips - Golden gate bridge (1987, official sub ita)
Emo Philips racconta il tentativo di salvare un aspirante suicida sul Golden gate Bridge di San Francisco. Traduzione ufficiale dei ComedySubs (www.comedysub...
August 25 at 3:50pm · Like

Edward Langley "Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest." I.32 a.4 co.
August 25 at 3:55pm · Edited · Like · 2

Edward Langley Anyways, I have to run, Peregrine seems to have been out-Magisteriumed.
August 25 at 3:56pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order."

This is the Church's infallible teaching on the necessity of Revelation to know truths of the metaphysical order. 

Now, some maintain that "natural theology" is necessary for the fullness of the sacred, and in so doing they provide instruction in metaphysics without knowledge of the sacred principles of revelation under the authority of the Church. 

How foolish. This would be like teaching theology in a Catholic college without teaching the fullness of what the Church teaches! It would be like shooting an arrow without aim.
August 25 at 3:56pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Just a word to the wise on all sides (and to add to the number of comments, especially repetitive ones). It makes your opponent seem far more benighted if he is the only one making ad hominem comments.
August 25 at 3:58pm · Edited · Like · 1

Edward Langley Where's the magisterial source of that, Peregrine? All I can find are quotations from Ott.
August 25 at 4:00pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I think Warren Carroll is probably a Saint. He tethered instruction to the fullness of the teaching Church, and has given many students great joy and purpose in their studies.
August 25 at 4:00pm · Like

Catherine Ryland P.S. The above graphic is a JOKE! AND my claim there are no saints from our colleges is a joke too.
August 25 at 4:02pm · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I don't use Ott or Denzinger. The theological exegesis of doctrine is fascinating, and is often not conveyed in these sources. Doctrine comes from the life of the Church in Her sacred science. It is the most wonderful science.
August 25 at 4:02pm · Like

Edward Langley That's why I asked where the quote was from.
August 25 at 4:03pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure St. Thomas argues in favor of using ad hominem arguments, especially if your opponent is an unreasonable barbarian. (Why are the barbarians attacking Rome impervious to reason? Because they are barbarians.)
August 25 at 4:05pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I'll get it for you. I am on a Concall.
August 25 at 4:06pm · Like

Edward Langley The phrasing of that quote looks like something said ut in pluribus.
August 25 at 4:08pm · Like

Edward Langley For example why is it said to be "morally impossible" rather than just "impossible?"
August 25 at 4:09pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I think it says that because assent is moral. It is not just a factual proposition. Man's final end and goodness, all subjects of metaphysics, cannot be handled under metaphysics properly, without revelation. So it is a moral proposition.
August 25 at 4:11pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Because it involves more than the intellect, but also the will?
August 25 at 4:17pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It's from Vat. I
August 25 at 4:23pm · Like

Maximilian Nightingale This is still going on? I admire Sean Robertson for reading all the posts. I will not do the same. Mr. Scott is so odd... I'm not sure if you guys ever figured out what theology is, but in my experience TAC grads never have a hard time at theology in seminary. They certainly ask more questions than other students (sometimes without raising their hands), but this typically represents a willingness to understand. The most recent comments indicate that Vatican I was cited against the condemnable fideism/traditionalism which appears to be held by Peregrine, so this is thread is probably winding to a close.... Then again, he just said that he doesn't use Ott or Denzinger, so now I'm puzzled as to where he's getting his sources...
August 25 at 4:24pm · Unlike · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Vatican I On Revelation:

It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason,
can, even in the present state of the human race, be known
by everyone without difficulty, with firm certitude and
with no intermingling of error.

[now here comes the moral part]

It is not because of this that one must hold revelation to be absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end, that is a sharing in the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind; indeed eye has not seen, neither has ear heard, nor has it come into our hearts to conceive what things God has prepared for those who love Him.
August 25 at 4:30pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Maximilian, you seem verifiably odd yourself. I guess if your observation about seminary serves us all correctly, then all is well. Thank you for that insight. I do not hold to fideism. I embrace the role of metaphysics and reason in the life of the Church and in sacred theology, and in human anthopology. It's just that I give revelation and devotion its right place. Context & proportion is everything in education.
August 25 at 4:35pm · Edited · Like

Sean Robertson I have literally moved to a different country since this thread began.
August 25 at 4:41pm · Like · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure Just so everyone is clear, the above citation from Vat I means that WITHOUT revelation, you canNOT hold with firm certitude or without error things about God which fall within the scope of reason ((about His existence, Himself, His laws and will; ie. metaphysics or natural theology).
August 25 at 4:41pm · Like

Michael Beitia right you are Mr. Bonaventure. But no one is claiming that you can, except you claiming that TAC claims that. It is a many-nested claim-a-thon
August 25 at 4:42pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, Michael, TAC is claiming that you need to proceed with metaphysics first in order for you to be able to obtain, later in life, a fully developed sacred theology. This is flawed.
August 25 at 4:44pm · Like

Michael Beitia nope nope nope. obtain is not the same as understand, study or any other process. You're setting up a straw man....again
<sigh>
August 25 at 4:53pm · Like · 2

Sean Robertson By the way, some wise person way up there suggested a thread drinking game. I vote we start laying down some rules.
August 25 at 4:55pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia that's hard when most of my posting is at work. They frown on that sort of thing
August 25 at 4:55pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Let me tread lightly here, Michael, in good faith. TAC seems to be saying that you need to study metaphysics in order for you to understand sacred theology. This is evident in its Charter and curriculum. This is a flawed approach, because as the Church teaches, revelation in the sacred science is required for the perfection of metaphysics.
August 25 at 4:56pm · Like

Sean Robertson 1) Every time Michael Beitia's last name is misspelled.
August 25 at 4:57pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure an ounce of tequila
August 25 at 4:58pm · Like

Michael Beitia your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises:
1) TAC claims you need to study metaphysics to understand sacred theology

2) the Church teaches revelation in the sacred science is required for perfection in metaphysics

there is no conclusion that follows from these two things, least of all that TAC's method is flawed
August 25 at 4:59pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson 2) Every time JA Escalante quotes/threatens to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia.
August 25 at 5:01pm · Like · 3

Sean Robertson 3) Every time PB's argument is successfully refuted.
August 25 at 5:03pm · Like · 3

John Ruplinger Are these like thimble size glasses and microsips. ...... cause otherwise the thread will die soon, as pb refuters pass out.
August 25 at 5:04pm · Edited · Like · 2

Michael Beitia here it is:

August 25 at 5:05pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Pass out? Or die of alcohol poisoning?
August 25 at 5:06pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Of course my argument is conclusive. The church teaches the sacred science and revelation is necessary to establish an error free metaphysics. This is the case between any sapiential science and revelation and the deposit of Faith. The maxim is faith seeking understanding. But TAC does the opposite, in its curriculum and teaching. It teaches that you must learn metaphysics first, in order to be able to have a full sacred theology later. This is a flaw, because it only makes false assumptions about the Faith because it is using a flawed metaphysics. 

See Dick run. Run Dick run!
August 25 at 5:11pm · Like

Michael Beitia ^nope that's just your perpetual straw man
August 25 at 5:11pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia id est: "have" is not the same as "learn"
August 25 at 5:12pm · Like

Michael Beitia (takes drink)
August 25 at 5:12pm · Like · 6

JA Escalante pretty sure "Peregrine" is Matthew's sock puppet for Klout-raising purposes
August 25 at 5:17pm · Like · 5

JA Escalante Come on, Matthew, admit it's you. No real person can be *that* unreasonable
August 25 at 5:18pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia updates!:

August 25 at 5:18pm · Like · 7

Michael Beitia I'm thirsty JAson, whip out the Catholic Encyclopedia!
August 25 at 5:19pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante HAHAHA perfect
August 25 at 5:19pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure TAC asserts you need to study metaphysics first, before sacred science, in order for you to be able to learn theology in its fullness later. 

This is the opposite of what the Church teaches.

Game over.
August 25 at 5:32pm · Like

Tim Cantu I've been on vacation so I'm late to this party buuuuuuuuuut http://i1.kym-cdn.com/.../hey-guys-whats-going-on-thread.jpg

i1.kym-cdn.com
i1.kym-cdn.com
August 25 at 5:33pm · Like · 3

Nina Rachele ? Uh, we cover Thomas's adaptation of Aristotle in the Summa before we cover Aristotle's own metaphysics so... no.
August 25 at 5:38pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele About to go into class so... bye.
August 25 at 5:39pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia here's what TAC teaches:

While, therefore, We hold that every word of wisdom, every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind, We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences. The wisdom of St. Thomas, We say; for if anything is taken up with too great subtlety by the Scholastic doctors, or too carelessly stated -- if there be anything that ill agrees with the discoveries of a later age, or, in a word, improbable in whatever way -- it does not enter Our mind to propose that for imitation to Our age. Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. Let the universities already founded or to be founded by you illustrate and defend this doctrine, and use it for the refutation of prevailing errors. But, lest the false for the true or the corrupt for the pure be drunk in, be ye watchful that the doctrine of Thomas be drawn from his own fountains, or at least from those rivulets which, derived from the very fount, have thus far flowed, according to the established agreement of learned men, pure and clear; be careful to guard the minds of youth from those which are said to flow thence, but in reality are gathered from strange and unwholesome streams.
August 25 at 5:40pm · Unlike · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure Haha. That's funny.
August 25 at 5:40pm · Like

Michael Beitia why, o trollish raptor?
August 25 at 5:40pm · Like · 1

Tom Malone This entire thread is one of several hundred instances that remind me of the following:
1) TAC would implode servers if they decided to do online courses
2) TAC'ers are weirdly obsessed with Facebook (saying vs doing, probably)
3) I hate TAC'ers on Facebook most of the time (myself included. It's a spiritual self-loathing of sorts.)
4) I don't hate TAC'ers when all they contribute is a funny image (Tim Cantu, mad props.)
August 25 at 5:43pm · Edited · Like · 5

Tim Cantu  you Tom
August 25 at 5:44pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante how is this whole thread NOT a funny image
August 25 at 5:47pm · Like · 6

Tim Cantu ^pretty deep when you think about it
August 25 at 5:48pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia I'm with you Escalante. I waffle between being totally amused, and trying to be serious. The thread is, however, a joke.
August 25 at 5:49pm · Edited · Like

Catherine Ryland over 2800!
August 25 at 5:50pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger BTW, Pater Edmund. That first link is quite a lengthy dispute. But I will take a looksee. However, I do not think you responded to my argument. You merely provided an example. That is, you did not addresses the questions and statements I made.
August 25 at 5:52pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger And to JA Escalante and others, I did send something off to Pater, yesterday, but am waiting for his response. . . . I figure there's no rush and the issue can be unburied again.
August 25 at 5:54pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante just keep Pater away from the tinder and matches and I'm sure there can be a conversation
August 25 at 5:55pm · Like · 3

John Ruplinger ??
August 25 at 5:56pm · Like

John Ruplinger gotcha
August 25 at 5:57pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger I miss the old days of digging up bones and pronouncing post mortem excommunication myself. It
August 25 at 5:57pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger ...It's so "incarnational." (There is still time. Nothing infallible yet.)
August 25 at 5:57pm · Edited · Like · 2

Megan Caughron

August 25 at 6:00pm · Like · 6

Isak Benedict 4) A White Russian every time "magisterium" is mentioned.
August 25 at 6:01pm · Like · 7

Tim Cantu ^"Get alcohol poisoning with this one weird trick!"
August 25 at 6:05pm · Like · 5

John Ruplinger Michael will have a few keyboarders hospitalized with one of his sentences.
August 25 at 6:05pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson What would y'all most like to add to TAC curriculum if you could? One author/reading/topic only.
August 25 at 6:05pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Pascendi 
August 25 at 6:06pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson "Sacred Theology"=shot of jäger
August 25 at 6:06pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger I don't really know the curriculum; I just like to criticize it. But I have a better idea reading this thread 
August 25 at 6:07pm · Like

Megan Caughron The Tao te Ching.
August 25 at 6:07pm · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson Syllabus/syllabus of errors=vodka Jell-O shot
August 25 at 6:07pm · Like

JA Escalante Megan please tell me you're serious
August 25 at 6:08pm · Like

Megan Caughron Of course I am!
August 25 at 6:08pm · Like · 3

Megan Caughron It's a great text!
August 25 at 6:08pm · Like · 2

Tim Cantu of the many topics we covered, I most wished we had covered sacred theology. so I guess that would be my answer.
August 25 at 6:08pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante indeed
August 25 at 6:08pm · Like

JA Escalante I would add Goethe's Farbenlehre
August 25 at 6:09pm · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson "This thread reflects the views of its eternal self in time only by its operation - and is in no way affiliated with or representative of Thomas Aquinas College." You are now free to bask in its glory.
August 25 at 6:09pm · Like · 5

Tim Cantu If I'm being serious, the Great Gatsby. I'm also not much of a thinker, so it probably doesn't fit in.
August 25 at 6:10pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure No undergraduate Catholic institution in America limits the role of revelation in sapiential philosophy more than Thomas Aquinas College. It's not even close. 

So behold the titles of the seniors theses, and weep for their unemployability, and pray that at least a couple of them might be hired by the college to tutor; then marvel if any of these men of leisure can pay off their loans.
August 25 at 6:14pm · Like

Tim Cantu I have no interest in engaging the broader point, but the notion that it's impossible to pay off the massive debt load TAC saddles you with is laughable. If you take out the maximum in TAC loans, the standard 10-year repayment plan costs less than $200 a month.

But I must return to reveling in my unemployability.
August 25 at 6:15pm · Unlike · 5

Isak Benedict I had a discussion with my Rhetoric students on how to figure out if you're arguing with a fanatic. It's pretty simple. You just ask him "What would it take to change your mind?"

For as Churchill said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Nothing will ever change PB's mind. At this point, then, the only use in continuing to argue is for the sake of anyone possessing reason who could be in danger of falling sway to his brand of lunacy. Rational dialogue with a fanatic is a losing strategy. Even worse, you will always begin to take on the same characteristics as the fanatic, and his methods will begin to rub off on you.

The truth is that a fanatic is truly unable to stop. A mania compels him, and that mania can never be sufficiently clarified or satisfied.

Voltaire once had an argument with a Quaker over whether it made sense for them to call themselves Christians when they do not practice baptism. His conclusion: “I took care not to dispute anything he said, for there’s no arguing with an Enthusiast. Better not take it into one’s head to tell a lover the faults of his mistress, or a litigant the weakness of his cause — or to talk sense to a fanatic. And so I went on to other questions.”
August 25 at 6:15pm · Like · 5

John Ruplinger More literature I think would be in order. It's a complaint I've heard. And probably more politics / ethics from what I've heard. But for specific books I would have to look through the curriculum. (The Great Gatsby would not be on my list.) A poetry class including Dryden instead. How about a poetry memorization class (a la John Senior and IHS)? A poetry writing class? .......... just trying to spark others' thoughts here.
August 25 at 6:17pm · Edited · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Just getting out of signing up at HR and getting my ID card at the top ten national liberal arts college where I teach this semester. 

Now I gotta go back to my place and work on my other jobs - I mean, signing up for unemployment....
August 25 at 6:17pm · Edited · Like · 3

Tim Cantu I fully admit that Gatsby does not belong in the curriculum; I just like it. This is why I'll never have any role in setting curriculum at, well, any place of higher education.
August 25 at 6:18pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Really, the debt load at TAC is lower than almost any other liberal arts college in America - and in the top 100 it's usually one of the cheapest and best.
August 25 at 6:18pm · Like · 2

John Kunz [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/aVZgT.gif[/IMG]

i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
August 25 at 6:19pm · Like · 3

Tim Cantu TAC's financial aid is honestly unbelievably good, but because it's unorthodox (when compared to mainstream financial aid) it has a reputation as stingy. Which is unfortunate, because in my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.
August 25 at 6:19pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I think we need a new president. This unemployment thing is unacceptable.
And I'll never change my mind about that.
August 25 at 6:21pm · Like

John Herreid Brainstorm: as a Catholic alternative to the Ice Bucket challenge, people have to come here and "debate" The Peregrine for a couple of rounds or else donate a hundred bucks to charity.
August 25 at 6:23pm · Like · 10

Isak Benedict Tim - the Great Gatsby is absolutely defensible for inclusion in a Great Books program. I would include it. It even has "Great" in the title. 
I would add A Confederacy of Dunces, actually. Funniest book ever.
August 25 at 6:24pm · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson ^so good
August 25 at 6:24pm · Like · 1

Tim Cantu I now feel remarkably vindicated in this opinion, Isak.
August 25 at 6:24pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger But doesn't everyone at TAC read the Confederacy anyway?
August 25 at 6:25pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia John: Pascendi is on the curriculum already
August 25 at 6:25pm · Like · 3

Megan Caughron Choice 2: "The Double Helix" by Watson and Crick.
August 25 at 6:25pm · Like

Isak Benedict John - If they don't, they ought to
August 25 at 6:25pm · Like

John Ruplinger I just had to get that in the first post, Michael.
August 25 at 6:25pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I think Matthew, it depends on what you're replacing. I'd revamp lab, top to bottom.
August 25 at 6:25pm · Like · 2

Tim Cantu This is a (distilled and abridged) story that reminds me of this thread:

I'm with my family in Fort Collins, CO. We're taking the opportunity to enjoy the delightful Old Town district and walking around it a lot. Fort Collins being a hippie town, we were accosted (politely) by a Greenpeace activist who wanted to save the rainforests. I listened to his speech, only interrupting to ask which rainforests he wanted to save because I didn't like some of them (which really threw him for a loop). At the end of the speech when he asked us for a small donation and to become members, I said "No, I don't want to." When pressed for a reason, and when he gave me more good reasons to join, I said "Yeah, but I don't want to.", and politely went on my way. I have a new hobby; trolling sidewalk activists. And it reminds me of this thread.
August 25 at 6:26pm · Unlike · 2

Matthew J. Peterson TAC and the like are steals compared to other places that are 50-60k a year.
August 25 at 6:26pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I'd like to add Camus. The Stranger if y'all are hung up on fiction, I prefer The Rebel
August 25 at 6:27pm · Like · 2

Megan Caughron I vote strongly against adding more fiction.
August 25 at 6:27pm · Like · 4

JA Escalante aww Tim you shouldn't; they're just kids and it's a shite job.
August 25 at 6:27pm · Like

Michael Beitia thanks Megan, I tend to agree.
August 25 at 6:28pm · Like · 1

Tim Cantu Hey, I was polite and listened to him, but seriously, I'm not joining greenpeace or any other organization because an unwashed guy on a sidewalk told me I should.
August 25 at 6:28pm · Like · 1

Jeff Stouffer one book, post-graduation, amongst the many I have read, that really stands out is http://www.amazon.com/Progra.../dp/B000GCFBP6/ref=sr_1_10...
August 25 at 6:29pm · Like · 3

Tim Cantu also, as someone firmly in denial about his age, I reject the contention that I am not just a kid myself.
August 25 at 6:29pm · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Other suggestions: Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning," and Graham Greene's "The Power and the Glory."

I vote more fiction.  But I understand not wanting it. TAC doesn't do too well with fiction, literature, or poetry in general.
August 25 at 6:29pm · Like

Tim Cantu Megan: what if we stipulate that whatever fiction is added will be added at the expense of Faerie Queene?
August 25 at 6:29pm · Like · 7

Michael Beitia I think there's a strong case to replace some of soph seminar. Take out the Faerie Queene (sorry Pi-Pi) and stick in ...... .anything? Livy?
August 25 at 6:29pm · Edited · Like

Isak Benedict Just Part II, Tim - I liked Part I 
August 25 at 6:30pm · Like

John Ruplinger I'm just of the opinion that the old literature is so vastly superior, that if you spend enough time with the old, you will have no trouble with the recent stuff on your own. More time on the ancients (through Renaissance) and your all good. .. ..... more than that, I really like fewer and fewer of the new productions. They don't make the cut.
August 25 at 6:30pm · Like · 2

Megan Caughron My gosh. Stick in Cormac McCarthy in place of the Faerie Queene. Stick in ROWLING!
August 25 at 6:30pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante oh come on guys don't pick on Spenser
August 25 at 6:30pm · Unlike · 3

Tim Cantu Harry Potter for TAC Curriculum!
August 25 at 6:30pm · Like

Michael Beitia Spenser sucked
August 25 at 6:31pm · Like

JA Escalante what is this Spenser-hatred, fear of a Protestant planet?
August 25 at 6:31pm · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia Pietta tried for like two hours to explain to me why it is in the program. I glazed over ....
August 25 at 6:31pm · Like · 2

Megan Caughron If we want Renaissance English stuff, maybe Sidney's Defense of Poetry.
August 25 at 6:31pm · Like

Michael Beitia I think it probably has to do with modern men's incapacity for allegory
August 25 at 6:32pm · Like

Isak Benedict John, re: your poetry suggestion. I found it troublesome that after encounters only with epic poetry and some Shakespearean sonnets, seniors were expected to have a productive conversation about The Wasteland, one of the most difficult (if magnificent) poems ever written. This when barely anyone even knew what alliteration was.
August 25 at 6:32pm · Like

John Ruplinger right, Isak. . . . for myself I've never been able to get into Eliot. But it doesn't matter. I have too many great ones to spend time on.
August 25 at 6:34pm · Edited · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Upping the heresy quotient: James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
August 25 at 6:34pm · Like · 3

Megan Caughron Or with modern man's distaste for overblown Renaissance poetry. Spenser is like a literary fruitcake with LOTS of dried fruit and LOTS of nuts. Just cuz it's traditional, doesn't make it good. Please pass the crème brulee and the Yeats!
August 25 at 6:34pm · Like

Michael Beitia Passage to India?
August 25 at 6:34pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Daniel - SO MUCH YES.
August 25 at 6:34pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger CHAUCER (do ya'll read him? He is my favorite English poet = GOAT)
August 25 at 6:35pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Thank God no one said any C.S. Lewis. I need to keep my dinner down
August 25 at 6:35pm · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Or maybe Ulysses? It would provide a nice book-end to the Odyssey.
August 25 at 6:36pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante Spenser is theology for goodnesss' sake
August 25 at 6:36pm · Like · 1

Megan Caughron Ok. A poetry unit would be ok. The Four Quartets. Some Donne. Some Yeats. Some R. P. Warren. Mmmmm...
August 25 at 6:36pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict But...do you guys think that the inclusion of Tolkien in the Great Books canon is imminent? I know some who do.
August 25 at 6:36pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Yeah, Chaucer's Tales in place of Spencer ALL DAY
August 25 at 6:36pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Poetry and lit seminars made me fearful and depressed for the state of other souls. It was oddly voyeuristic, except you didn't want to see the uncouth ig'nance that was revealed.
August 25 at 6:36pm · Like · 5

Isak Benedict I think TAC students would spontaneously combust if they had to try to read Ulysses.
August 25 at 6:36pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Yeah. Def. more. literature. then. Matthew.
August 25 at 6:36pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia ^this^ (up one)
August 25 at 6:37pm · Edited · Like · 1

JA Escalante NO
August 25 at 6:37pm · Unlike · 2

Matthew J. Peterson We did Chaucer, but more would have been great.
August 25 at 6:37pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante for one thing, literature is much harder to discuss that propositions
August 25 at 6:37pm · Unlike · 3

Tim Cantu How many people here have seen Moneyball? Is More Literature the new market inefficiency?
August 25 at 6:37pm · Like

Michael Beitia another thing, it's longer
August 25 at 6:37pm · Like

Megan Caughron It's also much easier to read.
August 25 at 6:37pm · Like

Michael Beitia hardly
August 25 at 6:38pm · Unlike · 1

JA Escalante yeah and if Yeats, then "Crazy Jane and the Bishop"...see how that would fly at TAC
August 25 at 6:38pm · Like

JA Escalante literature is not easier to read than treatises
August 25 at 6:38pm · Unlike · 2

Megan Caughron BEOWULF!
August 25 at 6:38pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante most people read literature very badly
August 25 at 6:38pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia yes
August 25 at 6:38pm · Like

JA Escalante Beowulf makes sense.
August 25 at 6:38pm · Like · 3

Megan Caughron That's largely because they have done insufficient philosophy or theology or history or all three.
August 25 at 6:39pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I prefer Icelandic sagas. Could I get a few votes for Egil's Saga?
August 25 at 6:39pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante vote
August 25 at 6:39pm · Like

Catherine Ryland I'm definitely a fanatic, but I liked reading the Faerie Queen.
August 25 at 6:39pm · Unlike · 3

John Ruplinger But Beowulf is not as good (I love it don't get me wrong). But y'all need more readable ENGLISH, especially poetry.
August 25 at 6:39pm · Like

Tim Cantu yeah Catherine but you think metaphysics is necessary for sacred theology sooooooo
August 25 at 6:40pm · Like · 1

Megan Caughron Howl.
August 25 at 6:40pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante but seriously imagine trying to discuss the The Alexandria Quartet in seminar at TAC
August 25 at 6:40pm · Like

John Ruplinger Chaucer's Middle English is very easy to pick up in a week.
August 25 at 6:40pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia but I don't ever want to spend two hours talking about poetry with a bunch of twenty-year olds (You kids get off my lawn!)
August 25 at 6:40pm · Like · 5

JA Escalante it would be utter ruin
August 25 at 6:40pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante or imagine discussing Finnegan's Wake with a bunch of 17 year old homeschoolers. UTTER RUIN
August 25 at 6:41pm · Like · 4

Megan Caughron Kerouac - !!
August 25 at 6:41pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia almost as bad as discussing it with critical theorists.....
August 25 at 6:42pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Kerouac is better to listen to.
August 25 at 6:42pm · Like

Megan Caughron Multi-media! The return and rise of literature as spoken! The modern Homer!
August 25 at 6:43pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I think, generally... No, I won't go there. That would be fanatical.
August 25 at 6:44pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante Erotokritos. Still chanted every day all over Greece, and almost totally unknown in the West. And did Megan just call Kerouac the modern Homer for reals?
August 25 at 6:46pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I think most students at TAC have to spend too much energy assenting to particular tenants that are far more limiting than the universal freedoms which the Catholic Faith has to offer. When they graduate, a lot of times they don't know how to believe and go with the flow. They don't know how to think outside of any box. There are exceptions to this rule, but go ahead and dispute me. I am fanatical about it.
August 25 at 6:49pm · Like

John Kunz THREE THOUSAND WITHIN THE HOUR PEOPLE!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZxHAZChcYU

Picard - Make It So
August 25 at 6:50pm · Like · 4

JA Escalante Peregrine, it's "tenets"
August 25 at 6:50pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Hey - shouldn't TAC be paying ME for this thread, as the headline is a gigantic advert for them?
August 25 at 6:50pm · Like · 7

JA Escalante not "tenants"
August 25 at 6:50pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson And it is continually in everyone's face?
August 25 at 6:50pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante might result in a drop in admissions though
August 25 at 6:51pm · Like · 4

Megan Caughron Assenting to tenants sounds ... prostitutional...
August 25 at 6:51pm · Unlike · 7

John Kunz SAY WHAT YOU WILL ABOUT THE TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM. AT LEAST IT'S AN ETHOS.
August 25 at 6:51pm · Edited · Like · 5

Matthew J. Peterson I would only take 10% and distribute the rest weekly -proportionally to top commentators.
August 25 at 6:52pm · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson And then you could all use that money to help pay student loans, thus renewing the eternal return - the Neverending Thread.
August 25 at 6:52pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure If there were a contemporary Virgil or Homer, what form would he write in? What would he write about?
August 25 at 6:52pm · Like

JA Escalante there couldnt be a contemporary Homer; cf Lewis on primary and secondary epic in "Preface to Paradise Lost"
August 25 at 6:53pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure My word, thank you, I meant tenets.
August 25 at 6:54pm · Like

JA Escalante there could be a contemporary Virgil; Tolkien *might* be something like it
August 25 at 6:54pm · Like

Tim Cantu "There are exceptions to this rule, but go ahead and dispute me."

In that case, the exceptions to this rule are essentially every graduate of TAC I know personally. But as they say, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
August 25 at 6:55pm · Like · 2

John Herreid "If there were a contemporary Virgil or Homer, what form would he write in? What would he write about?"

Sing, O muse, of the rage of Peregrine, that brought countless comments upon the book of faces...
August 25 at 6:55pm · Unlike · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure Would he write about Hobits?
August 25 at 6:55pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I sing of facebook and a man of faces... And then we could write about how Juno hates America and the founders. But what form would it take?
August 25 at 6:57pm · Like

JA Escalante 60 more comments to the mark
August 25 at 6:58pm · Like · 1

Megan Caughron So back to the question about what should be added to the curriculum... What about Bonaventure?
August 25 at 6:59pm · Unlike · 2

Michael Beitia so we stopped talking about proposed additions? Damn this moves fast. I would suggest more modern philosophy, but not too modern so as not to scare anybody. I and Thou by Buber? 
Discipline and Punish be Foucalt. then I could show my campusing was unjust
August 25 at 6:59pm · Like · 6

JA Escalante i pushed for Bonaventure when I was there. No luck
August 25 at 6:59pm · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I for one say quod gratis asserritur, gratis negatur all the time.
August 25 at 7:00pm · Like

John Herreid "The Monster at the End of this Book" is worth a seminar, I think.
August 25 at 7:00pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia the monster at the end of this thread
August 25 at 7:00pm · Like · 1

Megan Caughron FOUCAULT. YES!!!!!!!!!
August 25 at 7:00pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure At TAC, is it big news when the curriculum changes a little?
August 25 at 7:01pm · Like

Michael Beitia yes. it is big news. I lucked out and missed TS Eliot
August 25 at 7:01pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia after my time
August 25 at 7:01pm · Like

Tim Cantu Things I Am Learning Today: I am remarkably poorly read compared to you people.
August 25 at 7:01pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia but I missed out on one of my favs, Heidegger, but we used to do private seminars for that
August 25 at 7:01pm · Like · 2

Megan Caughron I thought we read the Wasteland while we were there... did we not?!
August 25 at 7:01pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure What form would great epic poem take today?
August 25 at 7:02pm · Like

Michael Beitia Nope, just talked about it ad nauseum with Matthew Peterson
August 25 at 7:02pm · Like

Tim Cantu ^Tupac.
August 25 at 7:02pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante Foucault would be great and useful
August 25 at 7:02pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia 50shades of grey
August 25 at 7:02pm · Like · 6

Megan Caughron The great epic form of today = Star Wars
August 25 at 7:02pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante uh, no
August 25 at 7:02pm · Like

Michael Beitia It's settled then, Foucalt. When Can I expect my check, Peterson?
August 25 at 7:03pm · Like · 3

Megan Caughron (I was kidding on Star Wars... I do think that film as literature needs to get more respect, though.)
August 25 at 7:03pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia only if Peter Jackson will drink a cup of bleach
August 25 at 7:03pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure no you did not read,
the shadow under the red rock,
come here under the shadow of the red rock,

Twit twit
Jug Jug
August 25 at 7:03pm · Like

Michael Beitia no I read it a million times. Just not suffering through a 2 hour seminar on it
August 25 at 7:04pm · Like

JA Escalante now there's a thought. Why not assign films.
August 25 at 7:04pm · Like · 2

Megan Caughron Shakespeare today would be directing films. And the poets would be rocking out in Indie bands.
August 25 at 7:05pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante yes!
August 25 at 7:05pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante Yeats was right, the death of modern poetry is its severance from music
August 25 at 7:06pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia as long as we could watch Trollhunter
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1740707/

Trollhunter (2010)
www.imdb.com
Directed by André Øvredal. With Otto Jespersen, Robert Stoltenberg, Knut Nærum, Glenn Erland Tosterud. A group of students investigates a series of mysterious bear killings, but learns that there are much more dangerous things going on. They start to follow a mysterious hunter, learning that he is a…
August 25 at 7:06pm · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Darn, I thought you were serious about Star Wars. I am actually watching it right now with David and Jack. They are in the giant trash compactor as we speak. It is an epic with a simple structure. We could right one about the war with al quada and the extremists. This is an old war.

But what metre should it take? What form should the words take?
August 25 at 7:07pm · Like

Michael Beitia magisterium
August 25 at 7:07pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia off to Mass
August 25 at 7:08pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I don't think the great poets would be in Indie bands. Every great age has poets, except ours, but we live in the greatest age. Why is that? Do we not need poets? Are they really rocking out like men of leisure in India bands?
August 25 at 7:09pm · Like

JA Escalante John Donne looks a lot like Jack White, fwiw
August 25 at 7:10pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I wonder what form the words would take? Would it be hexameter with no rhyme scheme?
August 25 at 7:14pm · Like

JA Escalante it's a big modernist optical illusion which forbids us to see Vladimir Vysotsky or George Brassens as great poets
August 25 at 7:14pm · Like · 1

Megan Caughron Pray for us, Michael!
August 25 at 7:15pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante and we forget that Yeats chanted his poems with a bowed psaltery by preference
August 25 at 7:15pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I think great poets cannot hide behind contemporaneous excuses. They rise like corks. What form would they write in today. If they still wrote epics. Would it have rhyme? I wonder.
August 25 at 7:22pm · Like

JA Escalante Tolkien definitely wrote a "secondary epic". Whether it is the great one of our time is hard to say
August 25 at 7:24pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure It's not about the world though, or America or the rise of a nation. It's just about Hobbits. It's shear fantasy, unless it's an analogy about WWI or Armagedon or something? Is it about any historical event, or is it just about the struggle between good and evil? Just wondering.
August 25 at 7:27pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante that's a totally fair question
August 25 at 7:30pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I think the great epic so-called would have to be a novel form but full of poetic form.
August 25 at 7:30pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante thats what the LOTR is!
August 25 at 7:30pm · Unlike · 2

JA Escalante and what Lewis calls "secondary epic"
August 25 at 7:30pm · Like

JA Escalante and to answer yr question, it's about the inner structure of political order and how one relates to the heroic past in order to be virtuous in the present
August 25 at 7:31pm · Edited · Like · 3

JA Escalante and "hobbits" are the modern middle class, petit-bourgeoisie
August 25 at 7:33pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland "or imagine discussing Finnegan's Wake with a bunch of 17 year old homeschoolers" --the Old Testament was bad enough. At least one person had to have circumcision explained to them, or so I hear.
August 25 at 7:35pm · Edited · Like · 4

JA Escalante at least one person in my seminar had to have explained to them what Dido and Aeneas were up to in the cave
August 25 at 7:37pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure What's circumcision? Please explain.
August 25 at 7:38pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante after someone spent nearly 30 min attempting suggestive circumlocution
August 25 at 7:38pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I thought Hobbits were the shrinking middle class caught in class warfare between the elves and the orcs.
August 25 at 7:41pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante haha that's actually not far from the truth
August 25 at 7:42pm · Like

Sean Robertson What about throwing some Chesterton into senior seminar? I'm just not sure how discussable that would be. Maybe it would depend whether it was his fiction or non-fiction.
August 25 at 7:43pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Chesterton's play is good. It is called Magic. I wrote a thesis about it. He uses a unique kind of discovery in it. His discovery is supernatural as the classical Greek discovery is like nature. Chesterton was really a playwright, but didn't know it. He only wrote one play. At least that was my theory.
August 25 at 7:51pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante ^ I think that's plausible, actually
August 25 at 7:53pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Yeah, that could make some sense. At the very least, I've always thought that Chesterton was a poet who happened to write a lot of prose, while Lewis (for example) was a prose writer who happened to write some poetry.
August 25 at 7:59pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure His dramatic discovery/reversal was the best technique ever. He was very gifted.
August 25 at 7:59pm · Like

Sean Robertson 3,000
August 25 at 8:00pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante Say more about it, Peregrine. I admit I never liked the "discovery" in the Fr Brown stories, seemed always too telepathic and irrational
August 25 at 8:00pm · Like · 2

John Kunz DAMMIT!!!
August 25 at 8:04pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Did you miss 3000?
August 25 at 8:05pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I agree. The senery and the actors apparently had a good effect on him. They drew him in. His play is more elegant.
August 25 at 8:09pm · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell I think the Fourth Millenium must be Joachim of Fiore's Age of the Holy Spirit -- JA and Peregrine are agreeing on something.
August 25 at 8:14pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure The play is built around one central change/discovery. It is a story about a love and a marriage. The woman is seduced by a conjurer. There are two forces working in the plot. GKC worked from a literary theory called the mystical minimum of gratitude. This was a constant theory that he applied. The tiniest particple of positive grace can overwhelm a universe of darkness. The Christian narrative uses this discovery. Why was God born in a stable. This is a mystical minimum. Our hearts are wired to respond in gratitude to this discovery.
August 25 at 8:27pm · Like · 1

Joel HF TAC has too much literature, at least, senior seminar does.
August 25 at 8:28pm · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure In the play Magic, Chesterton orchestrates this kind of discovery. He uses two lights, one red one blue, for this discovery. The discovery has two parts: the diminishment of evil and the increase of gratitude. So it is a different kind of discovery. There's more to it, and there's only one in the play. He liked hanging out with the actors, and he liked how it was live. But he withdrew from it, probably because theater is like what St. Francis de Sales says about dancing, and GKC was very virtuous. He was no George Bernard Shaw.
August 25 at 8:31pm · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe Joel. You sadden me.
August 25 at 8:35pm · Like · 5

Matthew J. Peterson Peregrine Bonaventure - JA Escalante - this GKC discussion reminds me of one of my favorite poems about Shakespeare, and the fact that few know what they are actually good at, or what they are here for:

http://donmarquis.com/literature?pp=656

Literature | DonMarquis.com
donmarquis.com
August 25 at 8:38pm · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure That parrot sure knows his Shakespeare! Thank you.
August 25 at 8:50pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19094/19094-h/19094-h.htm

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Magic, by G.K. Chesterton.
www.gutenberg.org
G.P. PUTNAM'S SONS NEW YORK AND LONDON The Knickerbocker Press 1913 , 1913 BY G.K. CHESTERTON The Knickerbocker Press, New York play was presented under the management of Kenelm Foss at The Little Theatre, London, on November 7, 1913, with the following cast: : A plantation of thin young trees, in a…
August 25 at 8:58pm · Like · 1

Aaron Thibodeaux GKC's "The Everlasting Man" or "Orthodoxy"
August 25 at 9:06pm · Like

Aaron Thibodeaux or "The Ballad of the White Horse"
August 25 at 9:07pm · Like

Isak Benedict Regarding the comments about great modern poets - well, they're still doing their thing.
August 25 at 9:10pm · Like

Edward Langley I think Bonaventure's Itinerarium or De Reductione Artium ad Theologiam should be in the curriculum. Also, it'd be kinda neat to have read some Boccaccio or some such before reading Dante and Cervantes.
August 25 at 9:11pm · Like · 3

Edward Langley But, generally I'm on Escalante's side: there's already too much literature in the curriculum, there should be more medieval philosophy and more math and science: something by Cantor or Hilbert perhaps or perhaps just spending more time on Dedekind and Lobachevsky. (Maybe a semester of Set theory and symbolic logic and a semester of non-Euclidean geometry instead of the current senior math program? That would definitely help grad students out).

Also, one of my discoveries at grad school is that analytic philosophy is generally much more interesting than contemporary Thomism.
August 25 at 9:13pm · Like · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure Isak who are these great poets doing their thing today, and what form and meter are they using?
August 25 at 9:15pm · Like

Edward Langley And I never appreciated T.S. Eliot until I listened to recordings of him reading his own poetry.
August 25 at 9:16pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure More time for learning about beekeeping and vinetending should take place senior year. Students need more practical time to keep them in reality.
August 25 at 9:18pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley They should beef up the math curriculum, so we could say something like "TAC provides the equivalent of a triple major in Theology, Philosophy and Mathematics"
August 25 at 9:19pm · Like · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick Work Study is 13 hours of practical time a week.... Unless you are in the parcel room . . .
August 25 at 9:19pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Were there any noteworthy theses on literature this year.
August 25 at 9:20pm · Like

Edward Langley I'm an unemployable grad who had a real job throughout the four years he was in college, as well as a publication in a peer reviewed journal.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract...
August 25 at 9:21pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure More doctrine, and dogmatic theology freshman year, but I know we are all in agreement with that.
August 25 at 9:22pm · Like · 2

Anthony Crifasi http://www.ubergizmo.com/.../chart-shows-how-many.../

Chart Shows How Many Minutes The World Spends Looking At Screens
www.ubergizmo.com
We all love our gadgets, that’s for sure, but exactly how much time do we spend looking at them? After all we can be entertained by our computers,...
August 25 at 9:23pm · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick Ok we can't just add more course work. So I'm all for just fixing up math and sciences, which is what the college is working on too.
August 25 at 9:24pm · Like

Edward Langley I also think that throwing in some computer science might be worthwhile: there's some really fascinating research in algorithms which could potentially complement one's thought about the interior senses.
August 25 at 9:25pm · Like · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick Ed, just so I keep up good appearances with your wife. . . Shouldn't you be working on your Thesis? 
August 25 at 9:27pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure That's a great start Ed. Now you need to follow it up with a Broadway musical. The trouble with work is you sometimes need to move. I had to go to DC for my first job. I got kicked around for a few years, then finally landed in a career path as a speechwriter.
August 25 at 9:27pm · Like

Edward Langley Also, computer programming is the apotheosis of symbolic thought.
August 25 at 9:27pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Is apotheosis a kind of herbal tea?
August 25 at 9:29pm · Like

Isak Benedict I don't think there's too much literature - I just think what's there isn't done properly.
August 25 at 9:29pm · Like

Isak Benedict But other than that I agree.
August 25 at 9:29pm · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick DC is awful.
August 25 at 9:30pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley http://lmgtfy.com/?q=apotheosis
August 25 at 9:30pm · Like

Edward Langley DC is awesome
August 25 at 9:30pm · Like · 1

Clayton Brockman Realistically, there should be some writing classes in the program. But I've been accused of being too pragmatic.
August 25 at 9:30pm · Like · 6

Isak Benedict I was wondering when you would make an appearance, Clay.
August 25 at 9:31pm · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Or just more writing ... But that would be more work... And I'm not a fan of that
August 25 at 9:31pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Yep.
August 25 at 9:31pm · Like

Clayton Brockman Oh I commented earlier about the crap-flinging. I guess this counts more as a substantive contribution though.
August 25 at 9:32pm · Like · 1

Clayton Brockman And how could I stay away from a thread where you were in it, sir Isak?
August 25 at 9:32pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure DC is kind of awful now. It was fun under Bush.
August 25 at 9:33pm · Like

Isak Benedict I wasn't in it, haha. I left it behind and it returned into my life.
August 25 at 9:34pm · Like

Clayton Brockman I agree. Batman _Arkham Asylum_ was a fantastic graphic novel, but DC doesn't make them like that anymore.
August 25 at 9:34pm · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell DC was awful under Bush. They moved the 3 police forces downtown to protect against "terrorism" and those of us who lived outside the downtown area all got mugged. My house was also set on fire by an arsonist in 2003 (same year I was mugged).
August 25 at 9:35pm · Like

John Ruplinger once in, there is no exit.
August 25 at 9:36pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I meant DC, not the local government.
August 25 at 9:36pm · Like

Clayton Brockman Oh I meant the Comic book creator.
August 25 at 9:36pm · Like · 2

Joel HF Edward Langley, I forced my senior seminar to listen to a recording of Elliot reading the Waste Land. I think the tutor agreed on the condition that we stay late to make up the lost discussion time. Needless to say, I was quite popular with my classmates, as Samantha Cohoe can attest!
August 25 at 9:36pm · Edited · Unlike · 3

Edward Langley Our tutor made us read What the Thunder Said aloud.
August 25 at 9:37pm · Like · 1

Clayton Brockman Our tutor made us walk uphill in the snow, both ways.
August 25 at 9:38pm · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Sorry you got mugged and about your home.
August 25 at 9:39pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure We never had tutors are Christendom. We only had professors. They made us wake up half an hour before we went to bed to read Denzinger.
August 25 at 9:41pm · Edited · Like · 1

Clayton Brockman Were those intentional?
August 25 at 9:42pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Nevah!
August 25 at 9:43pm · Like

Clayton Brockman No, I just - Either that was a jab at Christendom or it wasn't. Sorry, I'm lost.
August 25 at 9:44pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Oh, yes. Intentional. Sorry, it was I who was lost. You know, back in 1854, Christendom College was preparing to grant federal loans, but day two at Gettysburg didn't go the way they planned.
August 25 at 9:48pm · Edited · Like · 2

Clayton Brockman The subject/verb thing was intentional? Pretty slick lol.
August 25 at 9:51pm · Like · 2

Joshua Kenz DC is awful.....Heck I committed a felony the instant I entered it without knowing it!

You guys are all insane. Here I had through of an explanation of assent of intellect and will, versus assent of faith, just to find that lost by 1000 comments in between.....

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends, some people starting commenting not knowing how it'd go, they'll ending up commenting orever just because this is the thread that never ends....
August 25 at 9:54pm · Like · 5

Edward Langley You might as well post it, Josh.
August 25 at 9:54pm · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz Oh if you say I am insane for reading and commenting on it...well I already know I am crazy...I expected better of some of you!
August 25 at 9:55pm · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Well the rest of us are not really better... We are all still here or keep coming back...
August 25 at 10:02pm · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I go to Mass, the thread goes to hell. Stay on topic, peoples! (and better math/science is priority #1, followed by getting rid of some of the literature. But they should add No Exit by Sartre. it describes the dorms pretty well)
August 25 at 10:03pm · Like · 4

Edward Langley I think the primary topic at the moment is getting to 4000
August 25 at 10:04pm · Like · 4

Samantha Cohoe I will concede that was fun, Joel, if you will concede that it was totally cool when I kept our Goethe seminar going the full two hours even though everyone else was in a pizza coma.
August 25 at 10:05pm · Like · 5

Joel HF That's right! Did we have that one in St. Pat's/the old 400 dorms? I vaguely recall it being there though that wasn't the usual classroom.
August 25 at 10:10pm · Like · 1

Joel HF And yes, I'll happily concede that Samantha.
August 25 at 10:11pm · Edited · Like

Samantha Cohoe And do you vaguely recall berating me afterwards? Ironic, coming from the guy who made us all stay *late* to listen to Elliot. ; )
August 25 at 10:12pm · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz Alrighty then. It is analogous to natural reason. Remember Aquinas divides the works of Aristotle in several ways. One distinction is between reason that produces certain knowledge (prior and posterior analytics), another produces opinion (Topics), another suspicion (rhetoric) and another a certain inclination through fittingness (Poetics)

The first works with necessary arguments (valid and sound syllogisms). The next gives an arguments that wholly declines the mind to one side of a contradiction, but leaving the either side as still possible, just not reasonably held (with the evidence at hand). The next declines the intellect to one side, but not completely, by making it more probable. The last inclines to one side through a certain beauty.

Now the assent of faith is like to the first, in that there is certitude and an affirmation of necessity. But assent of intellect and will does not exclude the possibility of it being wrong, but does mean that the strength of authority for the position calls for an affirmation that totally declines to one side of the contradiction.

It is analogous to a regular person accepting the consensus of biologists about certain biological theories. It is reasonable, and necessary, to trust experts. While also admitting an outside possibility of them being wrong here.

Likewise, when the pope or the bishops teach with authority, but not definitively, that is strength enough, not to exclude the possibility of another side, but to produce opinion and grant moral certitude (you can act safely on it) and renders it normally unreasonable to deny it (as it is absurd for someone who never studied that much math to dismiss non Euclidean geometries)

Now it is possible that an individual, who is well learned and studied is persuaded that such a pronouncement is false. He needs to ask himself, how competent he is on the subject... and then, if he cannot but disagree, in that rare instance assent of mind and intellect is not owed, but risk of scandal should prevent public disagreement. Outside of that rare instance, one gives internal assent, but as to an opinion. Obviously the maisterium of the pope supercedes that of a local bishop, etc. And there is the practical difficulty in determining what the Church permits for free discussion, and what is not.

If the CCC be considered an act of the magisterium, then so was the Roman Catechism. But they contradict each other on substantial points. At some point the majority of theologians rejected the Roman Catechism's teaching on holy orders, in spite of what appears as an act of the authentic magisterium....in a very real way theologians have relied on tacit consent to such debates...in our day of not condemning outright error, it makes it very difficult to assume "no censure" = tacit approval. But that is kind of how it goes.
August 25 at 10:13pm · Unlike · 6

Joel HF Me? Berating someone? Surely not!
August 25 at 10:16pm · Like · 2

Samantha Cohoe I miss senior seminar.
August 25 at 10:18pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia hah you whippersnappers. I wrote the book on TAC berating. Also set the record for longest coffee cup toss
August 25 at 10:18pm · Like · 2

Joshua Kenz The world record for a FB thread is 584,444 comments....we can do it!
August 25 at 10:24pm · Like · 5

Michael Beitia hah
August 25 at 10:24pm · Like

Thomas Quackenbush It would only take about seven years.
August 25 at 10:25pm · Like · 3

Thomas Quackenbush At this rate.
August 25 at 10:25pm · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz We can speed that up...post padding is an art
August 25 at 10:26pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Welcome back, Michael, thanks for your prayers.
August 25 at 10:29pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Has anyone at TAC ever written a thesis on the theory of evolution. It seems to me man came from dust, not from an ape-like creature. Mutation is a kind of evolution, but one thing cannot evolve into another.
August 25 at 10:32pm · Like

Megan Caughron I am leaving, but I just want to say how much I love and value what my alma gave me. I love reading those thesis titles. And sure, there's stuff to critique and even criticize. But it's great to know the people I know from going to TAC, and to have learned what we learned there. Haters gonna hate. But lovers gonna love, too. And thank God for that place and all it did for us. It was good for me --and so were you, my classmates. Goodnight, good people.
August 25 at 10:36pm · Like · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure Right now, Everything is happening at the same moment. Good night, moon.
August 25 at 10:38pm · Like

Isak Benedict PB why is your only concern about form and meter?

Who are the great poets? Gee I don't know, maybe try Christian Wiman, B.H. Fairchild, Wendell Berry, Ted Kooser, Maurice Manning, Mary Karr, Mary Szybist, Tomas Transtromer, Robert Hass, Philip Schultz, Charles Wright, W.S. Merwin, or Derek Walcott. Or if you are okay with the recently deceased, Czeslaw Milosz, Wislawa Szymborska, Philip Levine - or how about Seamus Heaney, who died last year?

If you can't take your poetry straight and need it cut with the sweet traditional forms, try Dana Gioia, Richard WIlbur, or Timothy Steele. Recently deceased formalist poet Howard Nemerov is also excellent.

This age is blessed with an embarrassment of poetic riches.
August 25 at 10:38pm · Like · 6

Edward Langley Thomas, it would be shorter, the post count is growing exponentially

August 25 at 10:45pm · Like · 7

John Ruplinger yeah. There be ways to continue that exponential growth. There is a method for burying trolls that hasnt been attempted.
August 25 at 10:51pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dmx4pRUpnk...

Brian Eno "Everything Merges With The Night"
From ANOTHER GREEN WORLD © 1975 EG Records Ltd
August 25 at 10:53pm · Like

Isak Benedict Please share it, John.
August 25 at 10:54pm · Like

John Ruplinger well one way is to attempt to tell the monster at the end of the book in the present context.
August 25 at 10:57pm · Like

John Ruplinger there is no end and a troll in the middle.
August 25 at 10:58pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Haha, tell the monster what?
August 25 at 10:58pm · Like

Isak Benedict I'm afraid I don't follow.
August 25 at 10:58pm · Like

John Ruplinger But it doesnt work for me because he's an invisible troll. I have plot details to finish up.
August 25 at 11:00pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Isak!?!?! I forgot about Milosz. "The Captive Mind" would work in senior seminar
August 25 at 11:00pm · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Michael!?!?! Yes it would.
August 25 at 11:02pm · Like

John Ruplinger But one can run away from and bury trolls in threads.
August 25 at 11:02pm · Like

Michael Beitia sorry I just got excited....
August 25 at 11:02pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Me too
August 25 at 11:03pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Seriously though, anyone bemoaning a lack of great poets today is just crying for the bygone days without looking up to see the scenery in front of him.
August 25 at 11:05pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley Perhaps we have good poets, I doubt we have great ones.
August 25 at 11:08pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict What makes you say that, Ed? I'd welcome your opinion.
August 25 at 11:10pm · Like

Isak Benedict Maybe we'd have to clarify what we mean by "great."
August 25 at 11:11pm · Like

Isak Benedict I saw you unlike my comment John  What made you waver?
August 25 at 11:11pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley I really don't have enough experience to have a solid opinion. But I tend to find today's formless poetry trite.

My appreciation of Eliot stems from discovering that he has more form than meets the eye. (Especially once Mr. Nieto introduced me to Hopkin's notion of Sprung Meter)
August 25 at 11:13pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger the word great
August 25 at 11:13pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley Ash Wednesday, for example, nearly always has five stresses on a line, even if it's unstressed syllables don't match the classical classes of meter. Hopkin's poetry is similar: he does weird things with accent, but he almost always writes pentametert.
August 25 at 11:14pm · Like · 2

Isak Benedict I would agree that formless poetry is trite. But I would not agree that the poets I consider the current "best" write formlessly. Hold on a sec
August 25 at 11:15pm · Like

Nina Rachele going to bed now, but just wanted to thank Isak for the list, I have been wondering about modern poetry recently but didn't know where to start.
August 25 at 11:15pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley Also, German poetry is amazing, 'specially Goethe, Schiller and Heine.
August 25 at 11:16pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Here's Christian Wiman's "Every Riven Thing:"

God goes, belonging to every riven thing he's made
sing his being simply by being
the thing it is:
stone and tree and sky,
man who sees and sings and wonders why

God goes. Belonging, to every riven thing he's made,
means a storm of peace.
Think of the atoms inside the stone.
Think of the man who sits alone
trying to will himself into a stillness where

God goes belonging. To every riven thing he's made
there is given one shade
shaped exactly to the thing itself:
under the tree a darker tree;
under the man the only man to see

God goes belonging to every riven thing. He's made
the things that bring him near,
made the mind that makes him go.
A part of what man knows,
apart from what man knows,

God goes belonging to every riven thing he's made.
August 25 at 11:17pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger I didnt really appreciate poetry until i taught it, and meter is important as well as substance.
August 25 at 11:17pm · Like · 3

Edward Langley Another way of saying what I'm saying, I think, is that we may have many poets like Service, Longfellow and Poe, but I haven't found any Shakespeares.
August 25 at 11:17pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict "Every Riven Thing" is a brand new form.
August 25 at 11:17pm · Like

Isak Benedict Edward, if that's what you mean, I think I can agree with that. But that's because Shakespeare is beyond great, as is Dante. 
August 25 at 11:18pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley I don't think we even have a Donne or Hopkins
August 25 at 11:18pm · Like

Isak Benedict Agreed, John - but it's only one of many tools in the poet's toolbox.
August 25 at 11:18pm · Like

Edward Langley (At least, Hopkins at his best)
August 25 at 11:19pm · Like

John Ruplinger American literature is really bad.
August 25 at 11:21pm · Like

Edward Langley .
THE world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs --
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
August 25 at 11:23pm · Edited · Like · 2

John Ruplinger i like Irving. . . . and . . . ok i admit i stopped reading it. And i probably read less poetry than Edward. I am just always disappointed. (O Conner is ok).
August 25 at 11:25pm · Edited · Like

Isak Benedict How can anyone say "American literature is really bad?" I really want to know!!
August 25 at 11:25pm · Like

Edward Langley Well, I find Flannery O'Connor pointless.
Melville is long-winded

But I love Twain
August 25 at 11:26pm · Like

John Ruplinger Melville is good. But i am cooling on Twain.
August 25 at 11:28pm · Like

Isak Benedict Graham Greene, Kurt Vonnegut, Walker Percy, William Faulkner, Herman Melville, Mark Twain, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Flannery O'Connor, Ray Bradbury, Cormac McCarthy, Edgar Allen Poe, David Foster Wallace, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jack London, Robert Penn Warren...all really bad, eh?
August 25 at 11:29pm · Like · 4

Edward Langley I haven't read most of them, mostly because (a) I don't read much literature and (b) when I do, I prefer to read English authors.
August 25 at 11:30pm · Like

Isak Benedict Well, that speaks for itself. Haha
August 25 at 11:32pm · Like

Edward Langley It's probably not great literature, but I think reading Asimov helps one understand the modern scientific point of view.
August 25 at 11:32pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger O Connor has craft. Its her grotesque that gives pause and the just what is she doing. But i much prefer the music of the older poets and the beauty. The music is very important.
August 25 at 11:33pm · Like

Isak Benedict Asimov is very good. The Caves of Steel is a personal favorite.
August 25 at 11:33pm · Like

Isak Benedict Willa Cather - My Antonia. *drops mic*
August 25 at 11:33pm · Unlike · 1

Edward Langley I do like My Antonia.
August 25 at 11:34pm · Like

John Ruplinger isak. That list has a couple decent and and one horrific.
August 25 at 11:34pm · Like

Edward Langley But, I don't think any of those authors compare to people like Dickens, Jane Austen and Wodehouse.
August 25 at 11:35pm · Edited · Like

Isak Benedict Gonna make me guess the horrific? Is it Faulkner?
August 25 at 11:35pm · Like

John Ruplinger none are great.
August 25 at 11:36pm · Like

Edward Langley (I'd probably bet $5 on that claim)
August 25 at 11:36pm · Like

Isak Benedict You mean the authors you mostly haven't read? 
August 25 at 11:36pm · Like

Isak Benedict Oh I know. You don't like DFW.
August 25 at 11:37pm · Like

John Ruplinger steinback is a terrible writer every way. There are a few decent but they are not great.
August 25 at 11:38pm · Edited · Like

Edward Langley That's where the bet comes in, Isak
August 25 at 11:38pm · Edited · Like · 1

Isak Benedict The author of East of Eden = terrible writer? I really don't even know how to respond to that, but that's all right. Can I ask, would you explain what you mean by "great?" Maybe we're not really disagreeing very much.
August 25 at 11:39pm · Like

Isak Benedict Wodehouse is very funny, Edward, but I don't think he's much more than light entertainment. Not that that's a bad thing, of course.
August 25 at 11:40pm · Edited · Like · 2

Edward Langley Well, I think he has a nearly perfect command of language.
August 25 at 11:41pm · Like · 3

John Ruplinger The author of grapes of wrath cant write a story. Maybe east of eden is much better.
August 25 at 11:41pm · Like

Edward Langley I also think people tend to give comedy short shrift
August 25 at 11:42pm · Like

Edward Langley And he's much better at short stories than O'Connor.
August 25 at 11:43pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger wodehouse is good.
August 25 at 11:43pm · Like

John Ruplinger O Connor definitely can write.
August 25 at 11:44pm · Like

John Ruplinger But there are few good at comedy.
August 25 at 11:45pm · Like

Isak Benedict Wodehouse is good. He's definitely not better at short stories than O'Connor. But I suppose in the end, comparing those two is like comparing apples and wheelbarrows.

Also - no one who loves O'Connor is giving comedy short shrift. She's as funny as they come.
August 25 at 11:45pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley My personal theory about O'Connor is that people find her confusing and confuse that with depth. 
August 25 at 11:47pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Now you're trolling. I refuse to bite.
August 25 at 11:47pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia O'Connor's novels are underrated
August 25 at 11:47pm · Like · 4

Isak Benedict ^Wise Blood is a truly great American novel.
August 25 at 11:48pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia although her short stories might be overrated
August 25 at 11:48pm · Like

Michael Beitia yes that
August 25 at 11:48pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger I stick with the old since I read little literature now. Perhaps that will change again.
August 25 at 11:48pm · Like

Michael Beitia I love Knut Hamsen. there I said it. Norway for the win!
August 25 at 11:49pm · Like

Isak Benedict It's pretty hard to overrate Parker's Back, or A View of the Woods...
August 25 at 11:49pm · Like

Michael Beitia yes but a good man is hard to find
August 25 at 11:49pm · Like

Michael Beitia Everyone should read "Growth of the Soil" but Knut Hamsen
August 25 at 11:50pm · Like · 1

Isak Benedict I see what you did there.
August 25 at 11:51pm · Like

John Ruplinger You can overrate by calling her great. That is all.
August 25 at 11:52pm · Like

Isak Benedict Of course, aren't we forgetting this wonderful small-town piece of classic American literature - "Under the Bleachers," by Seymour Butts?
August 25 at 11:52pm · Like

Isak Benedict But you haven't said what you mean by "great."
August 25 at 11:53pm · Like

John Ruplinger 
August 25 at 11:55pm · Like

John Ruplinger great = what one ought never tire of rereading. You like?
August 25 at 11:56pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger Irving is good (lacks depth). Great because i dont tire of rereading. His stories are perfect.
August 26 at 12:00am · Edited · Like

Isak Benedict Clever, but incomplete.
August 26 at 12:00am · Like

John Ruplinger then complete.
August 26 at 12:02am · Like

John Ruplinger I think great is as the wise man might judge. I lean on them and find after years they are right. Many factors in judging. But craft and substance are important as well as the beauty or wisdom they reveal and the wonder they foster.
August 26 at 12:06am · Edited · Like

Edward Langley I : American novelists :: a certain person : sacra doctrina
August 26 at 12:07am · Edited · Like · 2

Edward Langley A question that has been bothering me of late: how is the lady in Eliot's "Portrait of a Lady" presented?
August 26 at 12:09am · Like

John Ruplinger I can also articulate at length the deficiencies of many of those authors. I guess i mean the measure is not my ability to reread but this: that we either continually learn something new with each reading or delight in the story again and again. But the wise understand best and have best taste and in their absence good poets are guides as well.
August 26 at 12:31am · Edited · Like

Matthew J. Peterson It's that time again.

August 26 at 12:36am · Like · 5

Matthew J. Peterson All we had at the house was Episode 1. 

Tired. 

End of day. 

Wife gone. 

I was sorely tempted. 

But I couldn't sell my children out like that. So I walked all three of em down to the village and rented Episode IV, blue ray.
August 26 at 1:14am · Like · 5

Matthew J. Peterson http://youtu.be/pCjMGOvMghY

Star Wars Talk to Your Kids PSA
Star Wars fan dads discuss how they will talk to their kids about Star Wars.
August 26 at 1:15am · Like

Isak Benedict If the "I" in your analogy stands for "Isak," Edward - that's pretty funny. But I would hope I'm a better listener than a certain person. Also, we've all read the stuff he's quoting. You already said you hadn't read the authors I mentioned.

John, defining great literature as "that which one ought never tire of rereading" is still appealing to an undefined standard. Why "ought" one not tire of rereading such and such a book? Since that standard or measure is undefined, it seems to me that your definition relies too much on the arbitrary. What of the person who enjoys rereading Twilight, or Harlequin romance novels?

Remember too that Don Quixote never tired of reading and rereading his chivalrous adventure novels - and his brain dried up.

That's why I said your definition is incomplete. In all honesty though, I'm not sure I can define a great novel or novelist either.
August 26 at 1:26am · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Ah! And I just saw your followup comment. Somehow my screen is not updating the thread in real time. I agree more with your new qualification.

However, I do not see why articulating the deficiencies of authors makes one a better reader of literature.
August 26 at 1:31am · Like

Isak Benedict By that I mean something like:
"Vonnegut was a humanist."
"Yeah, so what?"
"So he's a deficient author."
Maybe that's not what you mean. If it is, I don't agree.
August 26 at 1:54am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson

August 26 at 2:14am · Like · 3

John Kunz That's just good parenting Matthew. The original not bastardized original releases are possibly to be blu ray'd prior to the magisterium's celebration of the fake date of Christ's birth.
August 26 at 2:56am · Like · 1

Megan Caughron To define great lit well I think you have to get a little outside philosophy and plant a foot in the worlds of both art and (don't shoot me) history and culture. Great writers, aside from technical control and wisdom about human nature / the human condition, are also men and women of their time. Yeah, Shakespeare and Austen wear well through the centuries, but that is not because they removed themselves from the concerns and styles of their age, but because they embraced them so thoroughly. I also therefore think that there is a good case, in literature, for looking to minority writers and writers from other countries/ cultures to complete the picture. Literature is NOT philosophy.
August 26 at 6:23am · Like · 1

Megan Caughron I think THE literary art form of our age, though, is film. It's weird, because a film is always a group project. But re envisioning what art can be given the tools we have -- that's humanity. London made Shakespeare possible, Gutenberg made Tolstoy possible, the camera ... Well, who ARE the greatest screenwriters and directors of our age? Perhaps I'm off in thinking this way. I'm open to being convinced otherwise .... But I'd need real convincing.
August 26 at 6:35am · Like

Michael Beitia I don't know Megan, film lends itself to passivity in a way that reading can't. There has always been trash literature (see also, Dumas) but in film it seems from a first glance that the trash is more.... voyeuristic? Is that the right word? And I'm not talking trash as in inappropriate film, but just "a movie" - like any summer action film. The way in which it entertains is different, and I would probably argue, lesser.
(Except Trollhunter)
August 26 at 7:20am · Like · 1

Megan Caughron Couldn't you same the same of drama, Michael? Shakespeare? I mean, consider The Godfather.
August 26 at 7:26am · Like

Megan Caughron Yes, it transports. I think that's why Shakespeare would have been all over it (see end of Tempest and A Midsummer Nights Dream). And Tolkien said fantasy wouldn't work as drama -- but his objections were pragmatic, and have been overcome by technology. (Which surprised me when I read it - !!)
August 26 at 7:29am · Like

Michael Beitia Maybe it's a defect in me, but plays are about dialogue, not exploding cars and gun fights. 
Personally, I've always liked the music/poetry comparison more than the film/literature comparison. But then you have film makers who were playwrights, like Mammet, right? very dialogue focused movies. But is that great? I know CGI makes me want to turn a film off, but I can watch a fully animated movie. It's a confused jumble here, no clear thoughts on the subject.
August 26 at 7:38am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund http://thomasaquinas.edu/about/nieto-a-study-film

“A Study of Film” | Thomas Aquinas College
thomasaquinas.edu
August 26 at 8:08am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia 1) I have no speakers at work. 
2) and hour + of Johnny Neat-o? That's a lot to ask
3) You really do have a link for everything, don't you Pater?
August 26 at 8:11am · Like · 3

Michael Beitia can you summarize?
August 26 at 8:11am · Like

Megan Caughron Thanks for the link -- going on my list of things to watch! Incidentally, films that inform my thinking on this would be Babette's Feast (confluence of dialogue and image / color is really moving), Twelve Angry Men (originally a play, but the use of camera on faces develops it well... and nothing much "happens" but my 17-year-old girls were enthralled with the film), Inception (which is best and perhaps only done on film... and perhaps ends with a slick meta-commentary on the art of film itself as a "shared dream"...). Just thinking out loud. As usual. Ha!
August 26 at 8:21am · Like

Katie Duda I would amend the statement film is passive. Film when all the elements come together seamlessly can be very manipulative and the experience is more immediate. I don't like grouping film and literature, but they do have narrative in common. Film has at its disposal so many tools to tell a story and very different tools than literature. (Think the way Citizen Kane works with physical size; Wizard of Oz and color). But I often find that something has to alert me to a filmic device in order that I watch the film "actively." Reading... I see and appreciate device everywhere but this might come down to training/indoctrination at this point.
August 26 at 8:22am · Like · 2

Megan Caughron Film might better be called "art form" than literature. It does involve literary elements, but ... yeah. I'd be willing to say it's not literature. But then ... what do we do with Shakespeare and Ibsen?
August 26 at 8:23am · Like

Clayton Brockman Earlier it was mentioned and questioned: "Where did the poets [specifically the epic poets] go? Is it Tolkien or whoever?" You guys, especially you guys in this thread, are not going to like the answer. After studying the epic form and whatnot for a lot of grad school, the art form that these people followed was not film. Film is where the Tragedians and Comedians went. The epic-writers went to video games. (Drops mic)
August 26 at 8:23am · Like · 7

Megan Caughron Huh! (And why wouldn't "we guys" like the idea that the epic poets went to video games? Despite being accused of being unable to think outside the box, I think "we" (whoever that is...) -- like any other rational human being -- are perfectly capable of thinking not only outside the box, but about the box itself. Just weigh in, man, and assume nothing!)
August 26 at 8:26am · Edited · Like · 1

Katie Duda I don't play video games. Is there "epic-wholeness" in video games?
August 26 at 8:26am · Edited · Like · 2

Clayton Brockman Whoa there Tex, where you stand in relation to the box is no interest of mine. I just didn't think that scholars wouid think much of video games. According to research into epic as an art form, one of the qualifying essential criteria for an epic is that it must contain a struggle against the inevitable. In _The Iliad_, the gods struggle against Zeus or the humans struggle against Hera, etc.. The drama created by that resistance is what creates the content of the epic. _Paradise Lost_ and _Jerusalem Delivered_ follow the same rule. There was also a heavy audience-participation element assumed to be in each epic, though that's less essential and more an artifact of its origin.
August 26 at 8:27am · Edited · Like · 2

Megan Caughron Then maybe you be hanging with the wrong scholars. my friend.
August 26 at 8:28am · Like

Katie Duda Not true. There is no limit to what scholars take seriously. (Also have a friend writing on video game music). Going back to epic and video games? Why? Let me be a devil's advocate for a moment and present an argument not my own- our cosmology eschews wholeness, therefore the epic withers as a contemporary form. Not being familiar with video games, why are they epic?
August 26 at 8:30am · Like · 1

Clayton Brockman And that certainly used to be true! But anyways, in a video game, it's the content itself that struggle against you, the player. The drama of overcoming the game as its plot struggles against you, the inevitable winner, is what creates the content of the game.
August 26 at 8:31am · Like · 3

Clayton Brockman And the video game ignores the popular cosmology because they are intentionally made to be counter-cultural. It's ironic, I guess? They are wholly self-contained, because they need to be to make money. So I guess it's a sort of Capitalist-epic?
August 26 at 8:34am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Does Harry Potter count as an epic?
August 26 at 8:37am · Like

Daniel Lendman By the way, Dobby dies. DOBBY DIES!
August 26 at 8:37am · Like

Daniel Lendman Granted it might not be a very good epic, but still...
August 26 at 8:39am · Like

Katie Duda I will ask a really fundamentally dumb question about video games: DEATH. Is there really any video game death?
August 26 at 8:39am · Like · 1

Clayton Brockman Which one was Dobby? Was he the red haired kid?
August 26 at 8:39am · Like · 1

Clayton Brockman Yeah there is in some of the larger plots, but usually the video game has to break its own suspension-of-disbelief-rules in order to have death. So, if a character must die, then all of the other tricks that the player has learned to avoid death or cheat death are taken from them. That's the Epic-ist taking control back, I suppose.
August 26 at 8:41am · Like · 1

Clayton Brockman Oh jeez, Lendman liked my post about Dobby. He wasn't the red-haired kid, was he?
August 26 at 8:44am · Like

Daniel Lendman Nope.
August 26 at 8:45am · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I just watched the movies recently.
August 26 at 8:45am · Like

Daniel Lendman Never finished the books. I got lost in book 4 and never came out.
August 26 at 8:46am · Like

Clayton Brockman Book 4 was the one with the Twilight Guy that died right?
August 26 at 8:49am · Like

Daniel Lendman lol
August 26 at 8:49am · Like

Clayton Brockman Oh Jeez it's finally happened. I'm "out of touch."
August 26 at 8:51am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Clayton, the Legend of Zelda is epic from its inception (first video game where you could save your progress) all the way through the franchise. (skyward sword kinda sucked however)
August 26 at 9:14am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia http://news.lib.uchicago.edu/.../videogame-collection.../

Videogame collection supports scholarly study | The University of Chicago Library News
news.lib.uchicago.edu
After several months of fascinating discussion about emerging interest in the academic study of videogames, I am overjoyed that the University of Chicago Library has acquired its first videogame collection, and that these games will soon be available for borrowing from the Mansueto Library. Why, som…
August 26 at 9:36am · Like

Pater Edmund Michael Beitia, what is the "work" you are supposedly always also doing when on Facebook?
August 26 at 10:43am · Like · 5

Pater Edmund Things TAC should add to the program: Bonaventure, Scotus, Ockham, Luther, Calvin, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Goethe's Farbenlehre, Adolf Portmann...

Things that should be cut: Driesch and his stupid e-factor, the SJC measurement manual, but NOT Spenser; The Faerie Queene is good stuff, and I would never have read it if it hadn't been in the program.

Things they should not add: novels that everyone has read anyway, especially highly overrated novels like Gatsby.
August 26 at 10:46am · Edited · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman You are doing a lot of adding and not much subtracting... The program is already pretty full.
August 26 at 10:48am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman I agree with what Joel HF said about putting all of first year lab in 1 semester. That frees up some pace, but not for "Ockham, Luther, Calvin, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Goethe's Farbenlehre, Adolf Portmann..."
August 26 at 10:49am · Like · 3

Pater Edmund Wait up, I'm not done. The encyclicals should be taken out of seminar, and some Papal and Conciliar teachings added to theology.
August 26 at 10:49am · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland ^^This is starting to sound a little familiar.
August 26 at 10:50am · Like

Daniel Lendman We are in the Second Enlightenment of the Never Ending Thread.
August 26 at 10:51am · Like · 6

Daniel Lendman But since there is not properly speaking before and after, only above and below, this can really be considered the same as the First Enlightenment.
August 26 at 10:52am · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Consequently, it should sound familiar.
August 26 at 10:53am · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland Papal and Conciliar teachings=the M word. But you really should just have lectures about them, since laymen aren't qualified to really understand or discuss divine things.
August 26 at 10:53am · Edited · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I am not opposed to moving the Encyclicals to Theology. But I would not know what to move out of theology as is.
August 26 at 10:53am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund You could just have them in the last class of each semester, the way St Th.'s proemium to In Post. An. is done in the last class of Freshman Phil.
August 26 at 10:55am · Like · 2

Pater Edmund Oh look, it’s the statement that Rome made Bautain sign:

“We promise for now and forever: NEVER TO TEACH … 3 that with reason alone one cannot have the science of principles or metaphysics, and the truths depending on it, as a science totally distinct from supernatural theology, which is founded on divine revelation…”

August 26 at 10:56am · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Neat!
August 26 at 10:57am · Like

Michael Beitia Pater, work!? It's what I get paid (poorly) for doing
August 26 at 11:00am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia and thanks for the reboot. I thought I killed it with a scholarly study of Zelda
August 26 at 11:00am · Like · 6

Catherine Ryland On track for 4000.
August 26 at 11:01am · Like

Michael Beitia Wasn't Heidegger added to the program? When I was there we had seminars at Ferrier's house and one in the Library with Father Sokolowski from CUA on a couple of his texts (maybe one at Hartmann,s too.... my memory fades)
August 26 at 11:08am · Like

John Ruplinger Potter is epic indeed!!! (see edit: non -Potter fans only or you may need salts.)
August 26 at 11:12am · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I think "What is Metaphysics" should be added if it isn't already
August 26 at 11:13am · Like

John Ruplinger "What is magisterium?" magisterially speaking of course.
August 26 at 11:20am · Like · 3

Katie Duda GATSBY 4EVAH!
August 26 at 11:20am · Like

Katie Duda (kidding)
August 26 at 11:20am · Like · 2

Michael Beitia How about Moar Russan liderature?
August 26 at 11:24am · Like · 1

Isak Benedict *drinks White Russian*
August 26 at 11:24am · Like · 1

Isak Benedict *drinks another White Russian*
August 26 at 11:25am · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I think if there is more literature, surreality would be good. How about "Invitation to a Beheading" or "The Trial"
August 26 at 11:27am · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick Does anyone ever get through the required Thomas at the end of Year to have time to add other stuff in there as well?
August 26 at 11:27am · Unlike · 1

Isak Benedict Megan Caughron - I just want to point out one big difference I see between live drama and film. It seems to me that film is a primarily visual medium, which is why one refers to its consumers as viewers. Theater, on the other hand, is primarily ordered to the ear, which is why one refers to those attending as an audience (audio, audire). You go watch a movie. You go hear a play.
August 26 at 11:28am · Unlike · 5

Becca Cupo Are you all going to get together for a party and have a shot every time "Sacred Theology" is mentioned? I honestly don't have enough time to see if this has already been mentioned, but I really, really love this thread.
August 26 at 11:29am · Like · 1

JA Escalante Isak that seems totally specious
August 26 at 11:29am · Like

JA Escalante well, not totally. Just *mostly* specious
August 26 at 11:29am · Like

Isak Benedict Pater - although many have read Gatsby, few have read it properly. I can't blame you for referring to it as overrated, really, but I'd still defend it as a sacramental masterpiece. 
August 26 at 11:30am · Like

JA Escalante oh people, "sacramental" is not a term of literary criticism. When will you ever learn
August 26 at 11:31am · Like · 2

John Ruplinger Magisterium, magisterium, magisterium; repeat, repeat, repeat. whoops that was for Isak.
August 26 at 11:32am · Edited · Like · 2

Isak Benedict So it's right, but only superficially? Haha
August 26 at 11:32am · Like · 1

Isak Benedict And when the author himself uses the language of incarnation and holocaust, I think I'm justified in referring to it as sacramental. So there!
August 26 at 11:33am · Like

JA Escalante nope
August 26 at 11:33am · Like

Isak Benedict Am too
August 26 at 11:33am · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Isak, I do like Seamus Heaney. His translation of Beowulf was smooth. My concern about form and metre is that even the formless poets have some form. Their words fall into some form. The days of Pope's heroic couplets may be dead, they may not work today, but what is the form today?
August 26 at 11:34am · Like

Katie Duda I would add some Kafka (I know people have read it), The Cherry Orchard or the Seagull, and some lyric poetry of the English kind- Byron, Gray, etc., +Night and/or Ivan Denisovich. (But yeah, now I am getting too far ahead and not sure what is a *great* book at that point, but would like to incorporate how the suffering of Twentieth century is handled- it still being formative)
August 26 at 11:38am · Edited · Like · 2

Katie Duda (speaking only of lit I would add)
August 26 at 11:40am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I think American literature is great. It is curious though, that it does not rise to the level. In content. Mark Twain, Longfellow -- the last great American poet. None of them break out into epic greatness, which is curious. Because every great age has had poets that do this, and America is arguably the greatest nation ever. This may be because American greatness is about the little guy with unalienable rights fighting for freedom, and because America is built around eternal rights of the person. Other covilizations which housed the greater poets provided more societal data. Poets needs to become more spiritual in America before they will be able to connect the dots of liberty. Just a theory. But what form would that take?
August 26 at 11:41am · Like

Sean Plus Anne Schniederjan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux3-a9RE1Q

Cover Of The Rolling Stone-Dr.Hook
"(cover of the rolling stone) is property of (DR. Hook) and it's producers and/or promoters and is used here pursuant to the fair use provision of the DMCA a...
August 26 at 11:41am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure There have been a series of great novellae throughout the ages that all have the same character with a similar plot; Kafka's Amerika; Sam Jonson's Rasselas; Evelyn Waugh's Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold; Camu's L'Etranger; and Gunter Grass's Cat and Mouse; and Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. The Novella is an interesting form. But again, no great American Novella. Just toss outs that end up in Time's Store of Used Books.
August 26 at 11:47am · Edited · Like

Nina Rachele what about taking out Don Quixote? Unless someone else has already mentioned this. Also I don't see why we need two Freud seminars. I agree about adding Scotus and Bonaventure somewhere...
August 26 at 11:48am · Like · 1

Katie Duda I'd also make a big ole push for Havel's the power of the powerless. But I just think that's a damn fine essay
August 26 at 11:49am · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Denzinger and Ott are two of the best poets.
August 26 at 11:50am · Like

Nina Rachele we might as well say it, you could fix almost all the problems with pacing and cover "everything" if you just added a fifth year. yes, everything needed quotation marks.
August 26 at 11:51am · Like

John Ruplinger FOR ISAK. Some lengthier consideration. Criticism is easier, but I'm not just criticizing. Below is a start on distinguishing truly great literature from the slop of recent vintage. Much more needs to be said.
August 26 at 11:52am · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger To the question of what is “great”, and important question for a program that sometimes at least claims to be great books (at other times not). 

I believe Adler defines it as rereadable. Others as what time approves. If the latter, we can't call anything great but must leave it for the next age.

But are there any criteria by which we may judge? I don't agree entirely with the view of picking out those books that have developed our present culture. Not merely that at least, and ESPECIALLY so in literature (perhaps equally so in philosophy). Partly, the reason is that I regard the rise of modernity (in politics, philosophy, theology, and literature too) as a rejection of the ancients and the Church. Whereas Aquinas had the luxury (as well as Augustine) of picking out anything that was finely or rightly said by contemporary and ancient authors, we are now more involved in a war rather than a “great discussion”. Swift illustrates this in his intro to the Tale of Tub in one of my favorites “The Battle of the Books.” He demonstrates this poetically which I think I can demonstrate in bits and pieces only.

But as to literature or poetry and what qualifies as great, here's a few problems for recent novels (and is true of most American novels and a lot of poetry). In fact I recommend Rip van Winkle which is my favorite short American story (and I just realized as a kid I had his nickname, perhaps a part of the grand divine irony). The most significant change in the revolution I see therein is the loss of leisure, without which the poetic arts suffer grievously. One thing poetry (good poetry that is though not necessarily great) does is hold a mirror up to society (another aim being to concretize truth or point to beauty – Fr. Chad Ripperberger has an excellent essay on this, I believe on his site http://www.sensustraditionis.org/ChristianArtCulture.pdf ). Poetry can be more helpful for this because prudential judgement and politics are based on the concrete. Since we have no experience of pre-Revolutionary America, the poet (often an excellent observer) can show us what we cannot see ourselves and so aid us in making generalizations and judgements. Before reading Michael D. O'Brien's book “Strangers and Sojourners” I had difficulty understanding what distributism was, but in that he showed it (a kind of side point of it). He presented facts that one doesn't do. Likewise, our love of Hamlet these days (a play derided and unliked until this century) is a mirror for what most ails us, and after many years I think I finally see the horror of that image. THAT is one measure of the good poet. Can he hold a mirror to society (as Tennyson does in “Ulysses” which Eliot gives as an example of a perfect poem and I could write a few interesting comments on that too)? ANOTHER is “is it beautiful?” Does it direct us to love of the true? I see that in Dryden's ode to St. Cecilia. 

And the music is important especially in the later, because in odes (which are akin very much to hymns and even the same kind of thing really) we are attuned to the truly beautiful and truth itself. For this reason a poet like Tennyson is well worth studying. Even if his subject matter was less than worthy, his ear for the music of language is one of the best; in that he is amazing. The problem of much recent writing is the poet himself has lost the very purpose of poetry. These are just a couple considerations. The aim of tragedy/ comedy is more to hold up a mirror and by means of irony to point out the flaws as for correction. Thus Homer, I must say, is as ironic as Plato – indeed perhaps taught the Greeks that art. So many of his lines surpass anything written since like “she shed a light tear.” Can one ever fail to smile at that? Does it lose its vigor? Is it not still true to this day? The irony of what Achilles does immediately after proclaiming his everlasting love for Briseis. But almost every line of Homer is full of such, like Agammenon “leaning” on his scepter. For irony, as Aristotle points out, is the humor of the wise man (and indeed he too is full of such). Anyways, something to consider.
August 26 at 11:52am · Like

Pater Edmund Isak Benedict, your taste in literature is obviously good. (By which I really mean that the fact that you mentioned David Foster Wallace, about whom I am writing a dissertation, endears you to me). So you've introduced some doubt into my mind about Gatsby. But the problem with Gatsby seems to me that one never really cares about the characters. Sure they symbolize cool stuff and all, but that's all they do (unlike the characters in Faerie Queene  )
August 26 at 11:56am · Edited · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure I think in modern poetry, the heroic couplet has fallen apart, like the pieces of a broken barrel, and the metal hoops that bind them all, and the bottom, the broken bottom; and the modern poet picks them all up in his arms, and with his hands rearranges them. He makes it up, going along. If it sounds okay, it's okay. There's no poetics in poetry these days.
August 26 at 11:58am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Is David Foster Wallace worth doing a dissertation on? He wrote about substance abuse centers; The Pale King is all broken up.
August 26 at 12:04pm · Like

John Ruplinger I haven't read Wallace. Should I put him on my list? 
August 26 at 12:04pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Without a doubt, The Great Gatsby is the first great American novella.
August 26 at 12:12pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Pope's mock-epic is the best ever:

Oft when the World imagine Women stray,
The Sylphs thro' mystick Mazes guide their Way,
Thro' all the giddy Circle they pursue,
And old Impertinence expel by new.
What tender Maid but must a Victim fall
To one Man's Treat, but for another's Ball?
When Florio speaks, what Virgin could withstand,
If gentle Damon did not squeeze her Hand?
With varying Vanities, from ev'ry Part,
They shift the moving Toyshop of their Heart;
Where Wigs with Wigs, with Sword-knots Sword-knots strive,
Beaus banish Beaus, and Coaches Coaches drive. 
This erring Mortals Levity may call,
Oh blind to Truth! the Sylphs contrive it all.
August 26 at 12:25pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure With varying Vanities, from ev'ry Part,
They shift the moving Toyshop of their Heart;
August 26 at 12:25pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Where Wigs with Wigs, with Sword-knots Sword-knots strive,
Beaus banish Beaus, and Coaches Coaches drive.
August 26 at 12:26pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure This erring Mortals Levity may call,
Oh blind to Truth! the Sylphs contrive it all.
August 26 at 12:26pm · Like

John Kunz Gatsby is horse poop. Overrated, underwhelming. Great for marketing though. The first true soap opera. Much like the 20's Kardashian's.
August 26 at 12:26pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure You can't back that up. Gatsby is a great novella, in form and content and lyrical style.
August 26 at 12:28pm · Like

Katie Duda "Is X worth writing a dissertation on?" A question only possible for someone who has blissfully never written a dissertation.
August 26 at 12:38pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Rolling back......
Why are we talking about literature? It think it plain that studying both poetry and (most) fiction (fine, I'll add drama too) is (nearly) a complete waste of time in Seminar. 
I think there should be a seminar drinking game. Every time someone cherishes their pet crackpot literary theory everyone takes a shot. Poetry HAS to be read out loud. There isn't any other way to do it.
August 26 at 12:41pm · Like · 2

Sean Robertson I am in complete disbelief that somebody suggested taking Don Q. out of the program.
August 26 at 12:47pm · Unlike · 5

Sean Robertson For me how much I got out of the literature seminars came down to which tutor I had. Some tutors were able to make the works earth-shattering and incredible, while with others all I got out of it was what I got out of it by reading it. But I disagree that they are a waste of time.
August 26 at 12:52pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia nonono the literature isn't the waste of time. Just the class
August 26 at 12:53pm · Like · 2

Sean Robertson Again, I think that's pretty much 50/50.
August 26 at 12:54pm · Like

Isak Benedict So much to respond to. So little time.
August 26 at 12:54pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson But maybe that makes you right....
August 26 at 12:54pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson But I am still interested to see what Pater would take out of the program in order to insert the names he suggested above.
August 26 at 12:55pm · Like

Claire Keeler The more I like a book the more I hated doing a seminar on it. I'm being totally honest. I had to walk out of a few of them because I couldn't take the relentless plot and character dissection.
August 26 at 12:56pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Also, Heidegger is not in the curriculum.
August 26 at 12:56pm · Like

Katie Duda I think both Don Q and W and P are elegantly situated to predict some of the questions that motivate the other texts. I found classes on them highly frustrating because, first of all, there were two each. Not like, say 5 or 6, on the earlier stuff (Illiad, Odyssey, Aeneid, DC). I also liked A(ll)S(chool)S(eminar) on Death of Ivan Ilych and Murder in the Cathedral. But seminars were also frustrating because people were all over the place.
August 26 at 1:00pm · Edited · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Study literature as poetics, because it supports metaphysics and faith at the same time. Still a problem with the faithful being attracted towards the great secular literary writers, as the early Christian clergy were drawn towards the pagan philosophers. We need the light of the pagan philosophers, but also need the pull revelation.
August 26 at 1:01pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Thomas Aquinas was a great poet. His metaphor, Christ is a merciful Pelican, a bestiary.

Adoro te devote, latens Deitas,
Quæ sub his figuris vere latitas;
Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit,
Quia te contemplans totum deficit.
Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur,
Sed auditu solo tuto creditur.
Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius;
Nil hoc verbo veritátis verius.
In cruce latebat sola Deitas,
At hic latet simul et Humanitas,
Ambo tamen credens atque confitens,
Peto quod petivit latro pœnitens.
Plagas, sicut Thomas, non intueor:
Deum tamen meum te confiteor.
Fac me tibi semper magis credere,
In te spem habere, te diligere.
O memoriale mortis Domini!
Panis vivus, vitam præstans homini!
Præsta meæ menti de te vívere,
Et te illi semper dulce sapere.
Pie Pelicane, Jesu Domine,
Me immundum munda tuo sanguine:
Cujus una stilla salvum facere
Totum mundum quit ab omni scelere.
Jesu, quem velatum nunc aspicio,
Oro, fiat illud quod tam sitio:
Ut te revelata cernens facie,
Visu sim beátus tuæ gloriæ.
August 26 at 1:03pm · Like

Sean Robertson Yes! Don Q. is the perfect introduction/remedy to the authors read in junior seminar. And we also had really good All-schools on Murder in the Cathedral and Gunnar's Daughter, although again, mostly thanks to the tutors.
August 26 at 1:04pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure The symbolism of the mother pelican feeding her baby pelicans with her own flesh and blood is rooted in an ancient legend which preceded Christianity. This tradition is found in the Physiologus, an early Christian bestiary, which appeared in the second century in Alexandria.

August 26 at 1:07pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund Sean Robertson: Goethe on color and Portmann would replace the Measurement manual. Heidegger and Wittgenstein would replace the magisterial texts in senior seminar. And Bonaventure, Scotus, Ockham, Luther, and Calvin could be included by having sophomore seminar twice a week.
August 26 at 1:09pm · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Don Q is important because it precedes the modern English novel, and it is best of the Spanish in the tradition of the chivalric novel. It's part of a whole trend that lasted 400 years.
August 26 at 1:10pm · Like · 1

Katie Duda Once upon a time in a senior seminar long long ago, there was a girl who was so derailing in conversation that all the other students would only ignore her. She claimed that many of the texts were not worth the time. She coped by at first hiding Jane Austen novels behind her other book, but then grew so angry at the class's disregard that she read them openly, trying to draw attention to herself and holding the book upright on the table. That made reading literature (et al) frustrating....
August 26 at 1:10pm · Like · 2

Nina Rachele ^what Katie Duda said. Don Q needs at least 3 or 4 seminarrs if not more. There are some things that seem worth doing partially, but with a book like that... I'd rather take it out completely, which is why I suggested it. I know, it's a little defeatist of me.
August 26 at 1:13pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure http://www.rna.org/news/184377/Beasts-from-the-East.htm

“Beasts from the East” - RELIGION | NEWSWRITERS
www.rna.org
Fairfax, VA (For Immediate Release) -- Eastern Christian Publications announces the publication of a series of original Catholic devotionals entitled The Blessed Book of Beasts, written by Jonathan Scott.  Featuring virtually every animal named in the Bible, it uses classical literary forms from the…
August 26 at 1:14pm · Like

Sean Robertson Interesting. Although I'm not sure that there is room in the theology tutorial for those magisterial texts. Also, the chosen encyclicals generally are at least partially in response to the works read in senior seminar, so keeping them in there helps continuity in the class, I think. They should, however, move those texts individually to immediately follow the texts to which they relate most (Humani Generis after Darwin, Pascendi after Jung et al., etc.), instead of just throwing them in at the end.
August 26 at 1:15pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson And I wonder how possible it would be to have sophomores do two seminars a week. I think that might do more harm than good.
August 26 at 1:16pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure You need to get more magisterial texts and doctrine into the curriculum somehow. It is the glue that binds the airplane together, without which the kids will never fly.
August 26 at 1:17pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure If you put more magisterial texts in the body, you can build bigger wings.
August 26 at 1:18pm · Like

Katie Duda Can I get real excited about my crackpot literary theory yet?
August 26 at 1:19pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes.
August 26 at 1:20pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Duda's theory of literary activism.
August 26 at 1:21pm · Like

Sean Robertson Nina, I definitely agree that those things need longer study, but I still think they're worthwhile to do quickly. It does occur to me though, that my appreciation for Don Q. didn't reach its fullness until the post-seminar discussions.
August 26 at 1:22pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson The thing is, with almost every work we read in seminar, it really needs a much more thorough examination. We only skim the surface with most of those works (although I think we do a pretty good job given the circumstances). That's when I have to remind myself that the curriculum is really just a beginning.
August 26 at 1:25pm · Like

Sean Robertson And that "we do a pretty good job" comment probably applies more to the philosophers in seminar than the literature.
August 26 at 1:26pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Has anyone looked at the metaphysical art and theory of Carl Schmitt? His grandchildren and great grandchildren have gone to Thomas Aquinas College. I studied art theory and criticism for about a decade, and I don't think I've read anything quite so on the money. I just wish he wrote more.

He basically says the artist imposes form on non-formal, and formal, unities in nature, and then shares this in the form of his work of art. This is aligned with orthodox mysticism of the East and Western Churches, avoids modern art heresies such as sacramentalism, and bridges the gap between the classical formalists and the present. It gets us around the wasteland. 

http://www.carlschmitt.org/
Carl Schmitt
www.carlschmitt.org
August 26 at 1:26pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure You need a trained literary instructor. It took "scholars" 150 years to figure out what Pope was doing. But a good teacher can demonstrate that in 10 minutes. It is a balance of trust between the tutor and the student.
August 26 at 1:28pm · Edited · Like

Edward Langley I believe Carl Schmitt was a tutor in the early days of the college, before he went off to found the Trivium School to prepare highschoolers for TAC.
August 26 at 1:37pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley Pater, according to Dr. MacArthur, they did read Calvin at some point. I don't remember exactly why he said they removed it, but I think they either wanted to add something they thought was better or they generally found the discussions to be a waste of time.
August 26 at 1:40pm · Like

Edward Langley As far as Scotus goes, I'm not sure he'd be worthwhile at TAC: not because it isn't important to read him, but he's so complicated that he'd need more time than the program has to spare.
August 26 at 1:41pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia how about Suarez?
August 26 at 1:43pm · Like · 1

Pater Edmund Edward Langley, no haha, that was John Schmitt. _Carl_ Schmitt was the brilliant, scary German Jurist who wrote Political Theology.
August 26 at 1:43pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Speaking of the Christian bestiary, if anyone wants a copy of the first one written since the Middle Ages, please log on to:

https://secure.webvalence.com/ecommerce/kiosk.lasso...

Eastern Christian Publications
secure.webvalence.com
Perfect for parents and their children, grandparents and the grandchildren. The Christian bestiary is the original kind of devotional, and this is the first one written in centuries, and the only one ever that includes virtually every animal named in the Bible. 220 pages. Written in the manner of th…
August 26 at 1:44pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Edward, that was Carl Schmitt's son who taught at TAC and founded the Trivium. You may be related to him by marriage thrice removed. I just find it incredibly curious how Schmitt NAILED art theory, but TAC begins with Euclid and spends about one day on Poetics. Ne'er forget, Thomas Aquinas mastered the metaphor.
August 26 at 1:48pm · Edited · Like

Edward Langley Philosophy + Theology > Art
August 26 at 1:48pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Sacred theology > Metaphysics = Philosophy + Theology
August 26 at 1:51pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Art is just a making. It comes from the skill of the artist, and how he views the world. How he views the world depends on how he has learned, and grace. This informs the artist's observation, and his making.
August 26 at 1:59pm · Like

Michael Beitia So Ed, are you jettisoning literature for more Philosophy and Theology at the seminar level?
August 26 at 2:07pm · Like

Edward Langley I would, but I think too much more philosophy would dramatically increase burnout rates.

Also, Kierkegaard delenda est
August 26 at 2:24pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia why? Because phil/theo is superior, or because the classes on it are superior? or both?
August 26 at 2:25pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure With all due respect, I do not think anyone from Thomas Aquinas College understands the critical importance of a new art theory of realism. The founders and the tutors of the college could not explain the formal and material elements of metaphor and enthymeme if the world depended on it. The tutors force you to study logical syllogism for two months, but deny metaphor is a syllogism of beauty, and the enthymeme of the good. The curriculum is unable to deliver the transcendentals in a unified manner. So, there is no point reading literature. It undercuts what it sets out to do.
August 26 at 2:27pm · Like

Edward Langley Both, literature analysis always feels like a waste of time to me.
August 26 at 2:29pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia "Metaphor is a syllogism of beauty" is a metaphor
August 26 at 2:30pm · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia ""metaphor is a syllogism of beauty" is a blooming rose" is a metaphor.
August 26 at 2:31pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure No, metaphor is a syllogism of beauty is literal. Woman is a rose is an example of a metaphor. But what is metaphor? Tom Kaiser couldn't tell you what a metaphor is.

A metaphor is a syllogism that informs the imagination and leads to beauty.

Art is reasonable.

The enthymeme is like this, but in relation to the will and to the good.

This is what Aristotle teaches in his poetics, politics, analytics and movement of animals.

But you do not teach any of this at TAC, so the whole thing undercuts itself.
August 26 at 2:35pm · Like

Michael Beitia here it comes:
http://i279.photobucket.com/.../kk143/faeini1/agscary4.gif

i279.photobucket.com
i279.photobucket.com
August 26 at 2:37pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure It also undercuts the student, who thirsts for transcendental unity. This is because the human soul is one in imagination, reason and will.
August 26 at 2:40pm · Like

Michael Beitia I always considered "invisalign braces" to be trancendentistry
August 26 at 2:42pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure That reminds me, I have to call the ortho for my daughter. Thank you! 

Her teeth will be flocks of sheep, each one with its pair.
August 26 at 2:50pm · Like

Michael Beitia I assume by "transcendental unity" you mean good/true/beautiful, but you're assuming an awful lot when you say TAC doesn't understand poetics. 
And no, metaphor is not a syllogism, either regular or hypothetical...
August 26 at 2:54pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure You deny a lot of things in your ignorance and universally convert TAC with knowledge.

Metaphor IS a kind of syllogism. It has a premise, with an implied major, leading to a reasonable conclusion by imagination. 

Rose is beautiful (implied)
Woman is rose (metaphor)

Woman is beautiful (conclusio)

Enthymeme is a kind of syllogism also. Aristotle states this in Rhetoric.

Yes, transcendtal unity means the spiritual unity of the beauty, good and true. Logical syllogism only leads to true. Metaphor to beauty; enthymeme to good. Intellect, imagination and heart (will) respectively.

For the record, Michael Betia, you just denied all this.

But this is what Aristotle and Thomas taught, as well as Cicero and many others; but you do not learn this at TAC because it was establish by reactionary logicalists.
August 26 at 3:06pm · Like

Isak Benedict AND THEY'RE OFF
August 26 at 3:10pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia See, your inner Linda Blair is coming out again. Your example above shows the metaphor to be the minor premise, which isn't a syllogism, unless you're speaking in synecdoche
August 26 at 3:11pm · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia synecdoche isn't syllogism either
August 26 at 3:12pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Both metaphor and enthymeme are a kind of syllogism, as the Philosopher states, just as "African" is a kind of man. "The enthymeme is a kind of syllogism" (Rhetoric Bk 1) with an implied major, as is the metaphor, each leading to reasonable conclusions in imagination and will (toward the good), respectively.

Again, you are not competent on this issue. You are like someone denying that Micky Mantle was a baseball player. 

FWIW, the form of the syllogism is the same form as transcendental unity, with each form corresponding with the various parts of the one human soul (reason, imagination and will).
August 26 at 3:29pm · Like

John Ruplinger May I confirm that pb is trying to distinguish himself as a master of tropes, Michael?
August 26 at 3:32pm · Like

Michael Beitia maybe he should quote the whole passage
t is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated. The orator's demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the modes of persuasion. The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of syllogisms of all kinds, without distinction, is the business of dialectic, either of dialectic as a whole or of one of its branches. It follows plainly, therefore, that he who is best able to see how and from what elements a syllogism is produced will also be best skilled in the enthymeme, when he has further learnt what its subject-matter is and in what respects it differs from the syllogism of strict logic.
August 26 at 3:33pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Synechdoche is just when you take a part of something and use it to stand for the whole, and it has nothing to do with this. I think you just throw it in there to try to sound intelligent, like Langley, which is ashame, because you are both intelligent; but you fail to admit what you do not know, and deny truths which are obvious, such as a thing is defined by its form, metaphor and enthymeme have the form of a syllogism, which is why the Philosopher defines them as a kind of syllogism.
August 26 at 3:33pm · Like

Edward Langley Um, Mr. Not-the-Seraphic-Doctor, we TACers who read the Analytics and the Poetics and the Rhetoric remember passages like this which show that metaphor is not a syllogism but a way of using the name of one thing to signify another.
August 26 at 3:34pm · Like

Edward Langley "Metaphor is the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion. Thus from genus to species, as: 'There lies my ship'; for lying at anchor is a species of lying. From species to genus, as: 'Verily ten thousand noble deeds hath Odysseus wrought'; for ten thousand is a species of large number, and is here used for a large number generally. From species to species, as: 'With blade of bronze drew away the life,' and 'Cleft the water with the vessel of unyielding bronze.' Here arusai, 'to draw away' is used for tamein, 'to cleave,' and tamein, again for arusai- each being a species of taking away. Analogy or proportion is when the second term is to the first as the fourth to the third. We may then use the fourth for the second, or the second for the fourth. Sometimes too we qualify the metaphor by adding the term to which the proper word is relative. Thus the cup is to Dionysus as the shield to Ares. The cup may, therefore, be called 'the shield of Dionysus,' and the shield 'the cup of Ares.' Or, again, as old age is to life, so is evening to day. Evening may therefore be called, 'the old age of the day,' and old age, 'the evening of life,' or, in the phrase of Empedocles, 'life's setting sun.' For some of the terms of the proportion there is at times no word in existence; still the metaphor may be used. For instance, to scatter seed is called sowing: but the action of the sun in scattering his rays is nameless. Still this process bears to the sun the same relation as sowing to the seed. Hence the expression of the poet 'sowing the god-created light.' There is another way in which this kind of metaphor may be employed. We may apply an alien term, and then deny of that term one of its proper attributes; as if we were to call the shield, not 'the cup of Ares,' but 'the wineless cup'. "
August 26 at 3:34pm · Like

Michael Beitia IT DIFFERS FROM THE SYLLOGISM OF STRICT LOGIC (emphasis added)
August 26 at 3:34pm · Like

Edward Langley I wonder if you know what I just quoted from.
August 26 at 3:35pm · Like

Jonathan Carlin lol. of course everything mr. beitia learned about aristotle he learned at tac
August 26 at 3:35pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia bwahahahaha how you doing, former roommate?
August 26 at 3:35pm · Like

Jonathan Carlin pretty good!
August 26 at 3:36pm · Like

Jonathan Carlin How's the fam?
August 26 at 3:36pm · Like

Michael Beitia big and happy. When are you coming up north?
August 26 at 3:36pm · Like

Jonathan Carlin unfortunately, school does restrict my wandering a bit
August 26 at 3:37pm · Like

Michael Beitia as does the fam mine
August 26 at 3:38pm · Like

Jonathan Carlin yes indeed. and I know you love Irving.
August 26 at 3:38pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure It's one thing to read, another to understand, another to know what you do not know, and another to need to look like the smartest guy in the room.
August 26 at 3:39pm · Like

Michael Beitia "Love Irving?" that's hyperbole
August 26 at 3:39pm · Like

Jonathan Carlin well, maybe...
August 26 at 3:40pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Metaphor has also been described as analogy of inverse proportion, by how it predicates the attributes of one thing to another by imagination, and uses the form of a syllogism, as does the enthymeme.
August 26 at 3:41pm · Like

Michael Beitia recapitulate, restate

unlisten
August 26 at 3:43pm · Like

John Ruplinger I am beginning to suspect that Perigrine is on the payroll of TAC to draw students away from Christendom.
August 26 at 3:45pm · Edited · Like · 2

Michael Beitia the man can derail a conversation as fast as he can start one.
August 26 at 3:48pm · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure It's charming how TAC denies truth outside the range of its ideology.

Peter is a rock.

Does this mean Peter is a lifeless mass of compressed minerals?

Implied major premise: All rock is solid and a good foundation.

Metaphor: Peter is a rock

Conclusion: Peter is a solid foundation

Metaphor is a kind of syllogism (Aristotle, Thomas, Cicero, Boethius, John Donne...)

***

Enthymeme is a kind of truncated syllogism. Cicero's epichyreme is also a kind of multipremised emthymeme.

(Implied) The virtuous leader opposes tyranny

(Implied) Political walls restrain with tyranny

(Enthymeme) Mr. Gorbachov, tear down that wall
August 26 at 3:55pm · Like

Edward Langley No, Peregrine, metaphor is a species of equivocation.
August 26 at 3:58pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure You derailed it.

And it was never a conversation. It's an ideological polemic launched by a sycophant under the guise of truth, taking the names of Thomas and Aristotle and the Catholic Faith in vain.
August 26 at 3:59pm · Like

Edward Langley It goes like this:
- Equivocation
-- Equivocation by chance
-- Equivocation by design
--- Metaphor, in which the intended meaning is not a meaning of the word
--- Analogy, in which the intended meaning is a meaning of the word
August 26 at 3:59pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley There may be a quasi-syllogistic process that justifies a metaphor, but metaphor is not, of itself, an argument.
August 26 at 4:00pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Then why does it have the form of a syllogism, mr. smarty-pants?
August 26 at 4:00pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley "Metaphor is the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion"

Aristotle's definition and division of metaphor
August 26 at 4:01pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No one said it was an argument, mt straw man smarty-pants. It's a reasonable play on imagination in the form of a syllogism.
August 26 at 4:01pm · Like

Edward Langley Syllogism just is a greek word meaning argument
August 26 at 4:01pm · Like · 3

Edward Langley It's also a word people who are trying to sound "like the smartest guy in the room" use.
August 26 at 4:03pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure That's the anology by inverse proportion definition. And how come you won't answer the question. If metaphor and enthymeme are not a kind of syllogism, why do they take the form of a syllogism.
August 26 at 4:03pm · Like

Edward Langley I admit enthymeme is a syllogism, that is an argument.

I deny that metaphor is.
August 26 at 4:03pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Syllogism is a form.
August 26 at 4:04pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Metaphor is a reasonable appeal to the imagination, enthymeme to the will. This is why they have the same reasonable form as syllogism.

You're just in denial because this was not in your indocrination.
August 26 at 4:06pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure The reasonableness in form is a cause of transcentental unity.
August 26 at 4:07pm · Like

Edward Langley You're just asserting the things your teachers told you to assert.
August 26 at 4:07pm · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure ... unity between truth, beauty and goodness, in a rational soul comprised of imagination, will and intellect.
August 26 at 4:09pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure My teachers were the Great Books. They did not force me to drink Kool-Aid.
August 26 at 4:10pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Your teachers told you to drink the Kool-Aid of the Nile.
August 26 at 4:10pm · Like

Edward Langley At least at TAC we're willing to admit that the Great Books for the most part don't teach themselves.
August 26 at 4:11pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure What does metaphor mean in Greek, Herr Langley? Beyond something, right?
August 26 at 4:12pm · Like

John Ruplinger how, how, o how can one call a metaphor a syllogism? Perhaps we need to start at the beginning. What is a noun for pb?
August 26 at 4:12pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Ah, so you do need a teacher, then? Is this was you're admitting too now?
August 26 at 4:13pm · Like

Joel HF My, oh my. I guess I missed my window to talk about literature at TAC.
August 26 at 4:14pm · Edited · Like · 6

Edward Langley "a carrying across" "meta-phorein"
August 26 at 4:15pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Why don't you answer the question, Herr Langley?

Why does a metaphor and an enthymeme have the same form as a rational syllogism?
August 26 at 4:15pm · Like

Edward Langley The name of one thing is "carried across" to signify another thing improperly.
August 26 at 4:15pm · Like

Edward Langley I did: enthymeme does, quodammodo, metaphor doesn't
August 26 at 4:15pm · Like

Joel HF PB, of course we need teachers. We can hardly be expected to indoctrinate ourselves.
August 26 at 4:15pm · Unlike · 7

Peregrine Bonaventure Thank you, and what is carried across in a metaphor?
August 26 at 4:15pm · Like

Edward Langley Because metaphor is a way of using words, not a way of arguing
August 26 at 4:16pm · Like

Edward Langley As I said, the word is carried across.
August 26 at 4:16pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure That is not an answer. It is a false denial. It is self- evident they have the same form.

If the metaphor and enthymeme are not both kinds of syllogism, then why do they both have the same form?
August 26 at 4:20pm · Like

Edward Langley This is the form of a metaphor: Beatrice is a rose.
August 26 at 4:21pm · Like

Joel HF So, in fixing TAC curriculum, I like Pater Edmund's suggestions for the most part. I'd also take out Billy Budd, Flaubert, and Ibsen, and I'd halve the amount of time spent reading the Founding Fathers and Tocqueville.
August 26 at 4:21pm · Edited · Unlike · 4

Edward Langley Or, I should say, an example of a metaphor
August 26 at 4:21pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No, Herr Langley, the predication is carried across. Learn your grammar. The predicate attribute of the implied major is carried across to the metaphor, which leads to a reasonable act of the imagination.
August 26 at 4:22pm · Like

John Ruplinger I am starting to think its really maybe not PB's fault. He is so thoroughly confused. I was joking above but his inability to make distinctions reveals very fundamental confusion.
August 26 at 4:22pm · Unlike · 4

Edward Langley And metaphor doesn't involve syllogism but it can involve analogy.
August 26 at 4:24pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Ha! Just kidding. I was just seeing if you were awake. The subject of the major premise is carried into the position of the predicate of the metaphor, the minor premise, to carry the predicate in the major premise, across to the reasonable act of the imagination. 

Now could you please write that on the board 50 times.
August 26 at 4:27pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Hence, the carrying across. Just like the middle term carries across knowledge from better known to newly known.
August 26 at 4:28pm · Like

Edward Langley "Metaphor is the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion."
August 26 at 4:29pm · Like

Edward Langley As Aristotle says, what metaphor signifies directly is something about the imposition of names. It might use a four-term analogy to justify that imposition, but a four-term analogy isn't a syllogism.
August 26 at 4:30pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Beatrice is a rose is also the form of a minor premise with an implied major. Same for the enthymeme. Both are reasonable appeals, going from better known to newly known, carrying over through a middle, which is the carrying over part.
August 26 at 4:34pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure If "Beatrice is a rose" is the metaphor, Herr Langley, then what can we conclude from this metaphor?
August 26 at 4:36pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure The question, Ed.
August 26 at 4:37pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Can we conclude that Beatrice has thorns, and leaves?
August 26 at 4:38pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Does Beatrice have thorns, Mr. Langley?
August 26 at 4:40pm · Like

John Ruplinger perhaps you have misunderstood. Could pb's "arguments" be metaphors? . . . He doesn't know what syllogism is or metaphor: this is a breakthrough. But can he be helped? We may be dealing with Meno. I need to reread that dialogue
August 26 at 4:40pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Or is there something else implied in a kind of syllogism?
August 26 at 4:42pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Is this implication not an appeal to the imagination?
August 26 at 4:43pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Does it not lead to something new, using the same form as a syllogism and an enthymeme?
August 26 at 4:44pm · Like

Michael Beitia maps lead to something new. Ergo, maps are syllogisms
August 26 at 4:46pm · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke Do syllogisms and enthymemes have the same form?
August 26 at 4:47pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke and if they do, then what is there distinction?
August 26 at 4:47pm · Like

John Ruplinger Moreover, pb is proof that Faith requires reason. Lacking it, the fullness of the Faith is inaccessable to him.
August 26 at 4:47pm · Like · 2

Philip D. Knuffke Sorry, *their
August 26 at 4:48pm · Like

Michael Beitia enthymeme is probable sometimes, sometimes it elides one of the premises. It is proper to rhetoric whereas true (deductive) syllogism is proper to logic
August 26 at 4:49pm · Edited · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I am afraid The Never Ending Thread has entered another Dark Age.
August 26 at 4:50pm · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure They do, Philip, the enthymeme has an implied major premise. It leads to a reasonable act of the will toward the good. 

All good men desire good. (Implied maxim)

Milk is good for you. (Enthymeme)
August 26 at 4:50pm · Like

John Ruplinger adding enthymeme can only cause more confusion. He has NO idea what syllogism is.
August 26 at 4:51pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke But they have the same form, or no?
August 26 at 4:51pm · Like

Daniel Lendman John, Phillip, Michael and Edward, you guys can be the Irish monks that preserve culture and learning until we can come to a more civilized period.
August 26 at 4:51pm · Like · 5

Daniel Lendman Your welcome.
August 26 at 4:51pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Maps don't have a middle term, Michael. Metaphors and enthymemes do.
August 26 at 4:51pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Langley caused this Dark Age by denying the obvious.
August 26 at 4:53pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, they do have the same form. The difference is that the major premise is implied. One premise will get you nowhere.
August 26 at 4:54pm · Like

John Ruplinger FYI Philip. PB and I cant see each other's posts. I was excommunicated by him (blocked) before TNET era.
August 26 at 4:57pm · Edited · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman What if you're wrong?
August 26 at 4:56pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure They have the same form. All three depend on two premises and a middle term. The form carries over something new. 

The form is the same. The content is different. The content of the entymeme is moral. The content of the metaphor is imaginary.
August 26 at 4:57pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke I thought aristotle says that enthymeme is an argument based signs and his example from the prior analytics is something like you can guess that a philosophers are wise from the fact that socrates was both. it might also be true that one is implied, and typically is which is why in the rhetoric aristotle gives that as a description of the enthymeme.
August 26 at 5:02pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I would submit to the jury, that if the metaphor did not take the same form as a syllogism, then "Beatrice is a rose" is nothing more than a false premise. For clearly, Beatrice is not a rose. 

HATH BEATRICE THORN? HATH HER LEAFETH?!!
August 26 at 5:06pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke his other example from the prior analytics is something about lactating mammals being pregnant, which doesn't sound like a "moral" example very much. I think there's often confusion about this because enthymeme is so typical in rhetoric one tends to forget it in other places.
August 26 at 5:07pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Nay!!! Beatrice hath no thorn!

Hence, I would submit, the metaphor is more than a single premise, a false claim. No, there is an implied premise, which is the form of syllogism.
August 26 at 5:12pm · Like

Michael Beitia "Beatrice is a rose" hath not the form of a syllogism.
August 26 at 5:13pm · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke two premises do not, of themselves, guarantee that you have a syllogism. besides, even if there is an implied premise, it is outside of the metaphor, no?
August 26 at 5:14pm · Like

Michael Beitia unless you mean:
Beatrice is a pretty thing
all pretty things are roses
therefore, Beatrice is a rose
August 26 at 5:15pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Plus it is very hidden. Even in political speech. The implied major premise is often the content of much of the speech, the kairos, as it were, the forming the connection with the audience. The enthymeme is the punch line. Having connected with the multitude, you then move them where you want them to go. But it only really works when its moral, or when all good men lose their voices.
August 26 at 5:15pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke and in metaphors, which are improper speech, don't you have to take into account the meaning of the speaker which custom or context supply?
August 26 at 5:16pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke have you checked out the formal treatment of enthymeme in the prior analytics?
August 26 at 5:17pm · Like

John Ruplinger an observation: the perplexities in this debatable debate on metaphors is analogous the "debate" on fundamentals of theology.
August 26 at 5:20pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure St. Augustine is all enthymeme.
August 26 at 5:23pm · Like

Michael Beitia "St. Augustine is all enthymeme" is a metaphor
August 26 at 5:23pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Reagan was the only President in modern times who used enthymeme and metaphor perfectly.
August 26 at 5:24pm · Like

John Ruplinger mb if you were more explicit he might get it: viz. syllogisms require 3 propositions and metaphor needs 2 terms only.
August 26 at 5:25pm · Like

Michael Beitia why bother?
August 26 at 5:25pm · Like

Michael Beitia he'll just assert the same thing over and over
August 26 at 5:25pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke not if by enthymeme you mean "argument proceeding from signs or likelihoods" as aristotle does. Signs and likelihoods do not attain perfect universality which is why enthymemes are not syllogisms. the dici de omni and dici de nullo do not apply to enthymemes, but these are the principes of the syllogism.
August 26 at 5:26pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure At TAC, when they read Augustine, they try to extract the content and make syllogisms out of it, because they wouldn't know how to spot a rhetorical appeal if it kicked them in the knee.
August 26 at 5:28pm · Like

Michael Beitia which in no way responds to the objection Philip just raised, but resorts to (continual) name-calling
August 26 at 5:29pm · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke rhetorical appeal has a time and a place to take the forefront. actually, though, isn't rhetoric present in all the sciences to some extent because ethics is a universal knowledge in the sense that everything we do (including knowing) has a bearing on our happiness. thoughts anyone?
August 26 at 5:32pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke also, it is extremely unfair to say nobody at TAC is moved by the rhetoric of
August 26 at 5:34pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke Augustine. many of us have been profoundly moved by his writings.
August 26 at 5:35pm · Like · 2

Matthew Reiser You people are STILL here? I am beginning to wonder when this thread will officially become the walking undead and start demanding BRAAAAINS
August 26 at 5:40pm · Like

John Ruplinger i am not clear what you were asking above, Philip. The need for rhetoric depends on the audience entirely. If the listener cannot or wont follow syllogistic argument, it should be used. Of course poetry is often rhetorical. Though here's a question: is Aquinas' poetry rhetorical?
August 26 at 5:43pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke well, I guess I was thinking about the emotional and authoritative means of persuasion--their presence everywhere is pretty suprising, though true. Also, I wouldn't identify enthymeme and rhetoric. Enthymeme is use all over the strictly philosophical disciplines as, for example, when aristotle confirms the immateriality of the soul by its increase in strength after knowing a very intelligible object.
August 26 at 5:48pm · Like · 2

Philip D. Knuffke that fact is true of imagination and memory too, so the conclusion does not follow of necessity. enthymeme tends to get classed as solely rhetorical, I think, because the contingent subject matter of politics lends itself to this weaker form of argument; this and the argument called "example"
August 26 at 5:51pm · Like · 2

Philip D. Knuffke what I'm trying to say is that it seems impossible to me for a politician, making a speech about what to do in the future, to use a syllogism because the subject matter lacks the necessity for that kind of argument. it is not a matter of the attention span of the audience. that is the reason for the shortening of the enthymeme, not for its use in the first place.
August 26 at 5:54pm · Like · 4

Philip D. Knuffke again, I think there is a common misconception about what the enthymeme is, and how it is related to syllogism. but I would point to the formal treatment of argument in the prior analytics as the key place to look and understand the other more particular texts under its universal light.
August 26 at 5:56pm · Like · 2

Philip D. Knuffke what happened to Mr. Bonaventure?
August 26 at 6:01pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia flew away
August 26 at 6:04pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Philip, i agree with what you say except maybe about examples. As described in the rhetoric, they are more improbable than probable. But i still don't understand your initial question.
August 26 at 6:08pm · Like

John Ruplinger To be precise: they are often false, seldom probable.
August 26 at 6:13pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke you argue by example when you recommend a restaurant that you ate at last thursday. it was good for me, so it'll probably be good for you too.
August 26 at 6:16pm · Edited · Like

Philip D. Knuffke do we not use rhetoric even in, say metaphysics, which is a purely speculative science? and if so, what justifies this? I proposed an answer, but I haven't run it by any wise men yet for confirmation, so I figured I should take the opportunity while you guys are all here and talking about more or less related stuff.
August 26 at 6:19pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger regarding speaches on future actions, that is true and one cause for democracies trending toward tyranny. (The need for enthymeme, philip)
August 26 at 6:20pm · Edited · Like

Philip D. Knuffke what is true?
August 26 at 6:22pm · Like

John Ruplinger But the examples of example in the rhetoric are far more tenuous.
August 26 at 6:22pm · Like

Isak Benedict I can't keep up!
August 26 at 6:24pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke what do you mean, my friend?
August 26 at 6:25pm · Like

John Ruplinger regarding enthymeme in metaphysics, does Aquinus use it?
August 26 at 6:26pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke there is nothing impossible about it, though
August 26 at 6:27pm · Like · 1

Adrw Lng Do I read 2k comments and catch up because Philip D. Knuffke has joined the conversation?
August 26 at 6:27pm · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke i don't recall off the top of my head, what did you have in mind.
August 26 at 6:28pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke haha, just get your feet wet with the last coulple hundred and hop in. I actually never even saw the slideshow. mea culpa.
August 26 at 6:29pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger eg. Aesop's fables
August 26 at 6:30pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke could you say more what you're thinking?
August 26 at 6:31pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I agree Philip, the enthymeme needs to be cross-references with the treatise on valid and invalid syllogisms in the Analytics, for immoral persuasion relies on a flawed implied premise, as an imperfect syllogism relies on a flawed explicit premise.

But the book of Rhetoric introduces the enthymeme by name as a kind of truncated syllogism, the major premise of which is implied. 

Then something very fantastical happens. In On the Motion of Animals, or in the book which goes by that name, the enthymeme is described in a metaphor of the joint in the leg of an animal: the implied major is like the lower part of the limb, the minor explicit term is like the upper part of the limb, and when the two terms align around the middle joint, the leg straightens out, causing the animal to spring. The conclusion is the act. The implied major sits firm on an immovable rock, which is an ethical edifice, or an uncaused cause.
August 26 at 6:35pm · Like

Michael Beitia hahahahaha

rich. off to Mass
August 26 at 6:37pm · Like

John Ruplinger Maxims, anecdotes, Aesop's fables used as examples from which to derive decisions for future action.
August 26 at 6:40pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure We use rhetoric, metaphor and logic altogether in metaphysics. We must, because man knows with his soul, which is all of reason, will and imagination together. The sapiential philosophies use all three. In fides et ratio, and lumen fidei, for instance, when writing in the form of a sapiential philosophy, we see the pope write in enthymeme, metaphor and syllogism all at the same time.

I would be happy to send you a few examples in a bit. We went over this a bit in a previous discussion with Ferrier.
August 26 at 6:40pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke I don't understand. Does the holy father make one argument to be an enthymeme, syllogism, and metaphor all at the same time?
August 26 at 6:42pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke As to your earlier comment, I still maintain that you are giving a typical characteristic of an enthymeme as a definition of it. the text from the parts of animals is an illustration of that typical attribute.
August 26 at 6:47pm · Like

John Ruplinger Philip are you talking to pb? I guess i will restate my question to your question: do you think Aquinus uses rhetoric in metaphysics? I have certainly seen Aristotle use rhetoric in his work but have not read his meta. in a long time.
August 26 at 6:48pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke what about this: do you think that enthymeme is a species of syllogism? what are all the species of syllogism? if it isn't a species, why do you include it syllogism in the definition as the genus? and if it is a species, why do you divide the species against the genus when you listed enthymeme, syllogism, and metaphor all together?
August 26 at 6:50pm · Like

John Ruplinger i cant see anything pb writes. (I assume that is why michael was laughing.)
August 26 at 6:50pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke Mr. Ruplinger: yes I was. and yes, probably. why can't you see Mr. Bonaventure?
August 26 at 6:51pm · Like

John Ruplinger HE BLOCKED ME.
August 26 at 6:53pm · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke I take it this conversation was rather heated in the distant past.
August 26 at 6:54pm · Like · 2

John Ruplinger Its the only reason i joined the thread. I saw TAC alum beating up an imaginary person.
August 26 at 6:55pm · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke you are a TAC alumnus?
August 26 at 6:57pm · Like

Isak Benedict 3494
August 26 at 6:57pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger he blocked me before. I am anathema to pope pb, i presume, because i compared the CCC to the catechism of Trent on another thread.
August 26 at 6:57pm · Edited · Like · 2

Isak Benedict The schism rocked the facebook world
August 26 at 6:58pm · Like

John Ruplinger i am not TAC. Which adds to the irony. And i had come to his defence.
August 26 at 6:59pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke well, back to our calm and dispassionate discussion: I was thinking that were you or I to write a paper on a metaphysical topic, we would for sure pay attention to rhetorical details. why is that? I suggested that it was because our will and emotions can help or hinder our intellectual endeavors, so we must take that aspect of the reader into account.
August 26 at 7:06pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger do you think Thomas did this?
August 26 at 7:08pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke aslo, maybe we could say that rhetoric moves the will (and emotions) of the audience, but through the mediation of the imagination; hence good writing makes parallel scentence structure for parallel ideas and uses repetition and so on. well, the intellect is also moved by the imagination in a certain way, so to the extent that it is, the way you order your imaginings matters. but this managed by rhetoric. therfore.
August 26 at 7:08pm · Like

Claire Keeler No more posting the number of comments AS a comment! It's cheating!
August 26 at 7:10pm · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke he will often pull this trick. he'll support the major premise of an article's main syllogism above it, and he'll support the minor premise of an article's main syllogism below it, so that the two premises of the main syllogism are placed right next to each other at the center of the corpus--a rhetorical stroke of genius.
August 26 at 7:10pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke I'm talking about St. Thomas.
August 26 at 7:12pm · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure The Pope in his encyclical uses the metaphor, the enthymeme and the syllogism all at the same time, in the same sentence and paragraph. Then he uses the conclusion thereof and does it again, introducing established principles of sacred theology, to shed new light of Faith.
August 26 at 7:12pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke is the same argument all three at once, Mr. Bonaventure?
August 26 at 7:12pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No, rhetoric moves through the heart. Poetry/metaphor through the imagination; logic through reason. But they all have the same form.
August 26 at 7:14pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, the same is all three at once. It is an appeal to the whole of the person.
August 26 at 7:15pm · Like

John Ruplinger Is he just making it easier to follow the argument, do you think?
August 26 at 7:16pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke that seems impossible to me. but you never answered my series of questions above. what is your solution to the difficulties?
August 26 at 7:16pm · Like

John Ruplinger I don't see the difficulty. I only see that he orders the argument in such away as to make it most easily grasped by the reader. What am I missing?
August 26 at 7:18pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke once you solve those, I would like to see your analysis of the proposed argument which is at once a metaphor, a syllogism, and an enthymeme. I think it is possible to appeal to the whole person, by the way, without this three arguments in one business.
August 26 at 7:18pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger You are talking to PB again, aren't you?
August 26 at 7:18pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke Mr. Ruplinger: which is the art that teaches the rules of how todo that if not rhetoric?
August 26 at 7:19pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke and yes, to Mr. Bonaventure.
August 26 at 7:19pm · Like

John Ruplinger I agree. But that is not employment of ethos, pathos, or ethymeme. Certainly, I agree that any writer, even the best, will take into consideration the reader or audience. Thus, it is true that the art of rhetoric should be employed in all writing or speaking (the contrary of which I stated above).
August 26 at 7:21pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke Mr. Bonaventure: you seem intent on the correspondence of metaphor to imagination, rhetoric to heart, and logic to reason. But there are a number of difficulties in this. First, the soul of a rhetorical argument, says aristotle, is the logos, the appeal to reason, and the pathos and the ethos are subservient to this in good rhetoric and override it in bad rhetoric. Further, rhetoric moves the imagination too, as for example the parallel structures, groupings of threes, etc. these move and delight our imaginations first, and through our imaginations move our wills and emotions. Also, your division is unclear because, logic includes rhetoric and poetry as is clear from St. Thomas's proemium to the posterior analytics. Again, if we were to choose between imagination and heart to pair poetry with, isn't heart the natural choice? tragedy, for example, is defined by the emotions of pity and fear; the heart enters the very definitions of the species of poetry.
August 26 at 7:27pm · Edited · Like

Philip D. Knuffke Mr. Ruplinger: the structure, cadence, etc. of speech moves us for sure; though you've got a great point. it doesn't fit well into any of the traditional means of persuasion. I wonder where aristotle put these considerations.
August 26 at 7:31pm · Edited · Like

Megan Caughron Rhetoric is the "art of persuasion according to the available means" (Aristotle, de rhetorica). People are persuaded in three ways: by an appeal to the reason (via logic, and the enthymeme has been called the "rhetorical syllogism), the emotions (including anger, pity, etc.), and "ethos" (trust in the speaker's good will, good sense, and good character). Rhetoric is not philosophy, but the good rhetorician knows his philosophy. Rhetoric is the great civic art. And while rhetoric may involve poetry, and poetry may be rhetorical, they are too different things. The aim of poetry is beauty; the aim of rhetoric is persuasion. The aim of logic is demonstration.
August 26 at 7:32pm · Like

Megan Caughron That's not me, btw. That's just plain ol' Rhet 101. I think people are making things way harder and more complicated than they are, or need to be.
August 26 at 7:32pm · Like · 1

John Ruplinger But the aim of poetry is various and employs more or less rhetoric both as to the aim, and depending what kind it is (such as a Platonic dialogue  or a tragedy or comedy).
August 26 at 7:34pm · Like

Megan Caughron The aim of poetry as such as beauty. When it's aim is to persuade, it becomes rhetoric. Poetic rhetoric, but rhetoric.
August 26 at 7:35pm · Unlike · 1

Megan Caughron And let's be clear: I mean rhetoric as in the whole shebang discipline. Not just "schemes and tropes." Just clarifying. (That was a Middle Ages / Renaissance corruption.)
August 26 at 7:36pm · Like

Megan Caughron Over and out.
August 26 at 7:36pm · Like

John Ruplinger Some poetry is praise, other poetry can be declamation (satire). It is not all one thing. What is the end of tragedy? (And the Middle ages and Renaissance thought it was much more than that -- it is more of late 19th century corruption).
August 26 at 7:36pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke Well, Mr. Bonaventure I will wait for your answers to my questions. Please don't leave me hanging.
August 26 at 7:39pm · Like

John Ruplinger Megan, does Plato employ rhetoric in his dialogues which are philosophical but at the same time unmetered poetry of a kind (which seems to fall under Aristotle's divisions: remember too, he says poetry employs rhetoric)?
August 26 at 7:41pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure And the three cannot be separated; they go together because the soul is one. And the good, true and beautiful can only be fully attained in unity, and each appeals to these parts of the soul. Logic syllogism reason true. Poetry metaphor imagination beauty. Rhetoric enthymeme will good. They all have the same form. Different matter.

There is such as think as a poetic or rhetorical demonstration.
August 26 at 7:44pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke this is truly astonishing to me. I have never heard anyone else claim this. Are there any prominent thinkers such as St. Thomas or Aristotle who think this is the case? or do they in fact hold otherwise? besides, you are still refusing to answer my questions.
August 26 at 7:48pm · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Honestly Megan Caughron, have you studied Rhetoric at more than the freshman level of college?
August 26 at 7:49pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke i am beginning to suspect that you can't...
August 26 at 7:49pm · Unlike · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure Sorry, what was your question, Phillip. I have been coming and going?
August 26 at 7:50pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke there was a list of them. I can copy and paste them if you want, or you could just read back up a few comments. they were about the relation of enthymeme to syllogism.
August 26 at 7:52pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke here you go: what about this: what are all the species of syllogism? do you think that enthymeme is one of the species of syllogism? if it isn't a species, why do you include it syllogism in the definition as the genus? and if it is a species, why do you divide the species against the genus when you listed enthymeme, syllogism, and metaphor all together? you would never make a list of isosceles, equilateral, scalene, and triangle!
August 26 at 7:55pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke and here are the objections to the proposed division of metaphor, enthymeme, and syllogism and the corresponding powers of the soul: you seem intent on the correspondence of metaphor to imagination, rhetoric to heart, and logic to reason. But there are a number of difficulties in this. First, the soul of a rhetorical argument, says aristotle, is the logos, the appeal to reason, and the pathos and the ethos are subservient to this in good rhetoric and override it in bad rhetoric. Further, rhetoric moves the imagination too, as for example the parallel structures, groupings of threes, etc. these move and delight our imaginations first, and through our imaginations move our wills and emotions. Also, your division is unclear because, logic includes rhetoric and poetry as is clear from St. Thomas's proemium to the posterior analytics. Again, if we were to choose between imagination and heart to pair poetry with, isn't heart the natural choice? tragedy, for example, is defined by the emotions of pity and fear; the heart enters the very definitions of the species of poetry.
August 26 at 7:57pm · Like

Megan Caughron Plato is a funny case. He is a philosopher who uses rhetoric and is rendered poetically (in form). But saying we "use rhetoric" when we communicate is not a big deal. Saying a poet "uses rhetoric" is like saying a dancer "uses work." Incidentally, the reason it's important to separate rhet from philosophy is because rhet conceives language as power. Severing language from truth would be the risk (hence Plato's concern about rhetoric, and the modern fascination with it). Side-note: poetry used as rhetoric has a name, and that name is propaganda.
August 26 at 8:09pm · Like

Megan Caughron Im just throwing this out there in case someone finds it clarifying. If you dont....*airy wave of hand*.
August 26 at 8:13pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke Megan, I apologize for the lack of manners from Mr. Bonaventure.
August 26 at 8:13pm · Like · 1

Megan Caughron Aw thanks, Mr Knuffke! Nice of you to say thay.
August 26 at 8:16pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Logos is the first form of rhetoric which links it to logic and syllogism. By definition, it is the art of getting someone to DO something, so its aim is the will/heart. Logos informs the art with morality and reasonability.

Poetry leads to beauty, as Megan points out, the aim of poetry is the beautiful. The form of poetry is the metaphor, which is informed by the Logos again, in the form of syllogism. For metaphor requires an implied premise as well as the metaphor itself.

Beauty is first an appeal to the imagination. Beauty becomes more than a gazing when it is joined with truth and goodness. Unless this happens, beauty turns ugly.

These three things go together. If they fall apart, the good and true become ugly. Having the same form keeps them together.

Logos is the first form of all three.

Plato is a good example, as Megan points out. They all go together, so people mistake him sometimes for a poet, sometimes for a philosopher.
August 26 at 8:21pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke ok, since you deal with rhetoric first, would you mind answering my questions about enthymeme and syllogism? Everyone agrees that enthymeme is present in rhetoric, but i think the claim that syllogism is there is controversial.
August 26 at 8:27pm · Edited · Like

Philip D. Knuffke then we can have a conversation about how metaphors are arguments and whether or not they also are syllogisms or imply syllogisms. I think that is even more controversial.
August 26 at 8:29pm · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke what if we begin with this question: you say an enthymeme is a syllogism with a premise implied--well, are you saying that the enthymeme is a kind of syllogism, a species of syllogism? If so, would you mind listing all of them and we can examine by what they are distinguished the one from the other. This would, I think, clarify our discussion immensely. As Plato teaches us in the Protagoras: no more long speeches, just dialectical questioning and answering.
August 26 at 8:34pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Firstly, Aristotle states that enthymeme is a kind of syllogism. Langley agrees. Aristotle describes it is a truncated syllogism with an implied premise.

OK so far?
August 26 at 8:42pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke well, where does he say that?
August 26 at 8:42pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke I wonder if it might be best to say that syllogism there is meant equivocally, meaning "argument proceeding from general truths" or something like that. In this case, though, the truths aren't completely universal--they're signs and likelihoods as is taught in the formal treatise on arguments, the prior analytics. what say you, reasonable?
August 26 at 8:44pm · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger Megan, i am not going to fight you, except one thing. For Aristotle, rhetoric includes more than you admit. Preaching is a part of the art of rhetoric. Persuation is not merely aimless power. It includes convincing others of truth and convicting them of sin orally or by writing.
August 26 at 8:45pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Rhetoric Bk. II.

Well, argument proceeding from general truths is dialectic. This is what Aristotle's Topics is about. This is the form that Thomas uses in the Summa. This relies on the form of logical syllogism. He also incorporates dogma. 

Rhetoric is the counterpart to this. If all good men desire good things, and milk is good for you, then it is reasonable to drink milk.

The enthymeme is Milk is good for you.

It is reasonable because it is in the form of logos. It is a kind of syllogism. Same form as a logical syllogism, different matter. Different matter because deals with those political things other than philosophy and revelation that cannot be demonstrated with certainty, but cleaved to because they are good and desirable, or it can be used to persuade someone to do something good that is in keeping with a golden rule.
August 26 at 8:55pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke Mr. Bonaventure, what if I proceed more directly agianst your position like this: the fact that you state in spoken words the full two premises of an argument is utterly accidental to the reasoning that goes on in your mind, and therefore that fact cannot be a specific difference of any species of syllogism. I tried to give an account of what syllogism might mean there, but it seems absurd to say that it means the same as when said of, say, the demonstrative syllogism.
August 26 at 8:58pm · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke Even more fundamentally, the the two axioms, if you will, of the third act of reason, which are the foundation of the syllogism (the dici de omni and dici de nullo) cannot apply to the contingent truths about which rhetoric deals. You simply cannot make those kinds of statements about human behavior. Try to make a syllogism the conclusion of which is the US should go to war.
August 26 at 9:02pm · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Because for you to have certain knowledge, where the conclusion is absolutely certain, you need two explicit premises and a middle term.
August 26 at 9:03pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Just as if you want to jump from A to B, you need a limb with two parts and a joint in it.
August 26 at 9:04pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke I maintain that the certitude of the conclusion is caused by two CERTAIN premises which it so happens usually must be stated, though not always. Anyone with experience of Euclid's Elements has made not only syllogisms, but demonstrative syllogisms so fast that they could not state in words at the pace with which their minds were drawing necessary conclusions.
August 26 at 9:06pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure You need two, in other words, so that you know the cause on which the new knowledge depends. The conclusion is the new knowledge. It is derived from the major premise through a middle term to the minor premise. Metaphor and syllogism do the same thing, only premises are implied.
August 26 at 9:12pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke have you studied the Elements of Euclid?
August 26 at 9:13pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke you always need to premises, the question is whether you need to explicitly state them out loud, no?
August 26 at 9:14pm · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, I have seen these fast thinkers. I myself was not one of them.
August 26 at 9:23pm · Like

Philip D. Knuffke I'd like to correct something I said a bit ago. It isn't the certitude of the premises that cause an argument to be a syllogism, it is the universality of one of them, that is the real cause for the conclusion following of necessity. Whether or not the conclusion is itself necessarily true depends on the certitude of the premises. The enthymeme proceeds from premises that are general but not universal, and therefore the conclusion does not follow of necessity. The dialectical syllogism proceeds from universal truths but only probable ones, so the conlusion necessarily follows, but is only probable or likely. The demonstrtative syllogism proceeds from universal certain truths so its conclusion necessarily follows and is necessarily true. What do you think of my division?
August 26 at 9:25pm · Edited · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke We can continue this later--I need to sleep. Good night!
August 26 at 9:29pm · Like

Michael Beitia aah you let him off the hook
August 26 at 9:30pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, and I think that's right. I think for scientific knowledge, you just need to see two premises and a middle and a conclusion in your mind. You do not need to speak it, unless you are demonstrating a scientific proof to another.

The unstated premise of the enthymeme is not known to be universally true. It is just a maxim that is politically accepted by a majority. You do not want to say it as a premise, because you are not trying to get someone to agree that something is universally true, you are just trying to move someone to do something. Instead of stating a major premise, you want to build ethos.

With a metaphor, you definitely do not want to state the major premise, because it is not an appeal to the real but the imaginary through an analogy of inverse predication.
August 26 at 9:34pm · Like

Michael Beitia ^so is this a complete waffle from the before position?^
August 26 at 9:44pm · Like

Megan Caughron John Ruplinger - you are entirely right, and I don't know what I said to make you think I would disagree w that statement. Rhetoric is powerful and practical, and can be used for evil and should be used for good. Sigh. I thought that was obvious....
August 26 at 9:48pm · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz Wow...I just have one observation, per Aquinas. We can divide logic into two parts, one reason insofar as it is an act of understanding, and this is twofold. One is the act of simple apprehension, which is dealt with in the Predicaments (Categories). The other is that of judgment, which is treated in Peri Hermenias (de Interpretatione)

The other part is reason insofar as it proceeds from one thing to another, and this can be divided into three. The first is when reason proceeds, with logical necessity, to new truth with certitude, and this is called judicative or analytical logic. And this is divided into two, one is formal logic, i.e. the syllogism which is dealt with in the Prior analytics. The other is material logic, which deals with the soundness of premises, and this in the Posterior Analytics.

Secondly, reason may be led to an affirmation by probability, and this is "inventive logic" which can be divided into three parts. Faith and opinion is when reason is totally inclined to one part of a contradiction, although "with fear of the other" (formidine alterius), and this is treated by the Topics.

Secondly, there is suspicion when reason is inclined to one side, but not totally. And this is treated by the Rhetoric.

In estimation the mind is inclined to some part of a contradiction because of some beautiful aspect or representation, and the Poetics treat of this.

Lastly reason may be led to error, and this is treated in the Sophistical Refutations.

The difference between poetry and rhetoric is this, rhetoric still involves a form of illative reasoning, albeit incomplete, but poetry does not elucidate an argument formally, but rather gives an inclination through attraction, by its beauty. 

You are all very welcome (I recently reread Aquinas' commentaries on the Peri hermenias and Posterior analytics)
August 26 at 10:03pm · Edited · Like · 7

JA Escalante Joshua for Pope
August 26 at 9:55pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia however, appeal to authority is the weakest form of argument, according to Boethius....
August 26 at 9:57pm · Like · 5

Catherine Ryland Did anyone mention surpassing 3500? I'm really grateful this conversation is still going strong. I feel like someone should be assigning readings to accompany the Neverending seminar.
August 26 at 9:58pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Also, for the Orator, it is often inopportune to state a major premise. The threat of an enemy can sometimes not be stated to a civilised audience. It is however imperative that majority support be formed. So a variety of means may be employed. One may persuaded to vote for a leader because he sees it as a way out of economic hardship, but the hidden premise may be that a change of party is needed for national security.
August 26 at 10:05pm · Like

Michael Beitia I'll make the case for taking out some philosophy from Senior seminar. Hegel. The philosophy of history sets itself up nicely for Feuerbach and thence Marx, but Phenomenology of Spirit is too dense to be treated in such a short time.
August 26 at 10:06pm · Like · 2

Max Summe i think you're right Michael Beitia - we should probably read Hegel more slowly - as an extra 2 credit hour course....
August 26 at 10:07pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia No, just take out Phenomenology of Spirit and replace it with Heidegger later on. It's a simple fix
August 26 at 10:07pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia (still trying to stuff "What is Metaphysics" in)
August 26 at 10:08pm · Like

Michael Beitia Or perhaps I should respond to Scottrine:
voting is for chumps
August 26 at 10:09pm · Like

Max Summe How do you understand anything after Hegel without reading Hegel? I think also more waffles should be added to the curriculum.
August 26 at 10:10pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia did they still have those belgian waffle makers on Sundays when you went there?
August 26 at 10:10pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Hegel was amazing. What are you talking about?
August 26 at 10:11pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I did my thesis on Hegel
August 26 at 10:11pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Did you say it should be removed or did I miss something?
August 26 at 10:12pm · Like

Michael Beitia just Phenomenology of Spirit, not Philosophy of History
August 26 at 10:12pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Also yes there were waffles.
August 26 at 10:12pm · Like · 2

Nina Rachele we didn't have any belgian waffle makers tho... just the regular ones
August 26 at 10:12pm · Like

Nina Rachele i think?
August 26 at 10:12pm · Like

Michael Beitia I loved those do it yourself waffle things..... if you could fight through the tutor's children
August 26 at 10:13pm · Like · 4

Daniel P. O'Connell I do think we need to take the Phenomenology of Spirit out, unless we're going to spend 8 weeks on it. People make the mistake of thinking that because it's one of his earliest works that it's, if not easy, at least more approachable than the Encyclopedia or the Science of Logic. That seems false to me.
August 26 at 10:13pm · Like · 4

Nina Rachele 730 mass. problem solved. plus, you have all day to study and can do a full hour of adoration too.
August 26 at 10:13pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I used to go to the Indult at 1:30 in Ventura....
August 26 at 10:14pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele 730 was trid my last year there.
August 26 at 10:14pm · Like

Michael Beitia only once a month while I was there
August 26 at 10:15pm · Like

JA Escalante Hegel's Phil of Right should be read. TAC cant handle Phenom of Spirit
August 26 at 10:15pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia But, on topic, Daniel, that's why I maintain keeping philosophy of history. It is easier, and leads well into Feuerbach and Marx
August 26 at 10:15pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele the morning mass switched to always trid now...
August 26 at 10:15pm · Like

Michael Beitia yeeessssss JAson
August 26 at 10:16pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia so I heard, Nina
August 26 at 10:16pm · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell I would like to see a bit of the history of philosophy, too, if you ask me: but I think that would be contrary to TAC, to read Hegel, e.g., on Aristotle's Metaphysics. Cool, but contrary.
August 26 at 10:17pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I didn't write my thesis on Hegel, but some years ago I did make a Hegelian facebook album, illustrated with TACers and unicycles. 
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=8717309355&set=a.8717104355.14543.506859355&type=3&theater

Roy and Pat Ride a Unicycle
One self-consciousness realizes the other self-consciousness has a unicycle... 

Self-consciousness has before it another self-consciousness; it has come outside itself. This has a double significance. First it has lost its own self, since it finds itself as an other being; secondly, it has thereby sublated that other, for it does not regard the other as essentially real, but sees its own self in the other.

It will, in the first place, present the aspect of the disparity of the two, or the break-up of the middle term into the extremes, which, qua extremes, are opposed to one another, and of which one is merely recognized, while the other only recognizes.
With commentary by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
By: Catherine Ryland
August 26 at 10:20pm · Like · 4

Michael Beitia It's hard because Metaphysics is in senior philosophy, so one would have to line it up later in the year, but that's when seminar FINALLY makes it toward the 20th century
August 26 at 10:20pm · Like

Max Summe We should probably just create a new school - maybe a 12 year program?
August 26 at 10:20pm · Like · 3

Michael Beitia hey - just trying to tie up loose Petersonian threads
August 26 at 10:21pm · Edited · Like · 1

Megan Caughron Society on an upward corkscrew path, thesis-antithesis- synthesis, and zeitgeist. And self-actualizing world spirit. Thus my comprehension of Hegel. .... More time was probably warranted. Heh.
August 26 at 10:21pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia you forgot the world spirit realizing itself in freedom (if we want sound bites)
August 26 at 10:23pm · Like

Catherine Ryland No she said that. Can't you read, Beetia?
August 26 at 10:23pm · Like · 2

Megan Caughron I'm indifferent about the waffles. But I get these weird craving for the tamales they used to serve, of ALL things - !
August 26 at 10:23pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland (Sorry...)
August 26 at 10:23pm · Like

Catherine Ryland They never had tamales when we were there. Or ostrich.
August 26 at 10:25pm · Like

Michael Beitia "This truth of necessity, therefore, is Freedom: and the truth of substance is the Notion - an independence which, though self-repulsive into distinct independent elements, yet in that repulsion is self-identical, and in the movement of reciprocity still at home and conversant only with itself"
Hegel - Logic 158
August 26 at 10:25pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Of us, only the class of '02 remembers the ostrich I think.
August 26 at 10:25pm · Like

Michael Beitia oh, Matthew J. Peterson and I have a story about ostrich
August 26 at 10:26pm · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell In the early 90's, there used to be a Sunday-night 'mystery meat' which we took to calling goat-stag.
August 26 at 10:26pm · Edited · Like · 7

Catherine Ryland Do tell.
August 26 at 10:26pm · Like

Erin Turrentine '03 here. Ostrich was the mystery meat of our freshman year.
August 26 at 10:26pm · Like · 6

Erin Turrentine Or was it the "chicken"?
August 26 at 10:26pm · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I'll leave it to him. He was the one with the keys to the kitchen over Christmas break....
August 26 at 10:27pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Oh yes, I mean '03.
August 26 at 10:27pm · Like

Michael Beitia Erin and I overlap
August 26 at 10:27pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I wasn't there for the '02 class.
August 26 at 10:27pm · Like

Erin Turrentine Barely.
August 26 at 10:27pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Another reason rhetoricians do not reveal a major premise is because an audience is not moved to the good all at once, but gradually. Whereas scientific knowledge is grasped all at once, a speaker may lead an audience away from violence by telling them about beekeeping and the warring bees, as Virgil does in Georgics IV.
August 26 at 10:28pm · Like · 1

Emily Norppa Class of '09 here. We dubbed one of the meals "highlighter chicken"... anyone else remember that?
August 26 at 10:28pm · Like · 4

Catherine Ryland No, but I may have been gone.
August 26 at 10:29pm · Like

Michael Beitia So Peregott.... we can't study theology, or poetics (or literature) or philosophy..... so how'd we screw up math?
August 26 at 10:29pm · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz I once did a though experiment about the ideal program....even packed more tightly than TAC, it took 10 years, and there was still stuff I wanted to add.

Ostrich meat is good btw.
August 26 at 10:33pm · Unlike · 6

Nick Ruedig I remember highlighter chicken! (that stuff is scary, no joke)
August 26 at 10:34pm · Like

Megan Caughron TAC is part bootcamp, part appetizer, part party

I vaguely remember the ostrich....
August 26 at 10:36pm · Like · 2

Erik Bootsma You always knew it was ostrich when we had "meat tacos" etc. Like we couldn't tell the difference between genus and species.
August 26 at 10:39pm · Like · 8

Megan Caughron And speaking of rhetoric, how 'bout that "gourmet potluck." Heh.
August 26 at 10:40pm · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Sorry, I did not mean to waffle.
August 26 at 10:42pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Too much math, makes B'tia a dull boy.
August 26 at 10:43pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Too little makes Peregrott incapable of rational discourse
August 26 at 10:44pm · Like

Michael Beitia Joshua Kenz: ostrich meat may be good once in a while. Not for three straight months....
August 26 at 10:45pm · Like · 2

Megan Caughron Anybody remember the shark steaks?
August 26 at 10:49pm · Like · 1

Michael Beitia not really
August 26 at 10:49pm · Like

Megan Caughron I'd support Julia Child being added to the curriculum...
August 26 at 10:51pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante Elizabeth David would be better I think
August 26 at 10:58pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante Brillat-Savarin for real though
August 26 at 10:58pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante Brillat-Savarin is actually read in a regular elective at a great booksy place I know of
August 26 at 11:00pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Rather than extend the program, the obvious next step to me is to make a grad school program. Although you'd have to stipulate living off campus so that the grad students didn't go insane.
August 26 at 11:13pm · Like · 2

JA Escalante yes!
August 26 at 11:14pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante also, have we broached the topic of electives?
August 26 at 11:14pm · Like

Sean Robertson And from what I understand, the food is better than it used to be. But that didn't stop us from complaining about it every day.
August 26 at 11:14pm · Like

Catherine Ryland Elizabeth David would be a phenomenal substitute for Emma. Anything would really.
August 26 at 11:14pm · Like · 2

Megan Caughron Just so long as there's a practicum involved. 
August 26 at 11:15pm · Like · 2

Sean Robertson Electives?!? BURN HIM.
August 26 at 11:16pm · Like · 3

JA Escalante yep I went there
August 26 at 11:16pm · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell St. John's in Santa Fe has two grad programs, I think. One is great books West and one is great books east (including a language requirement).
August 26 at 11:16pm · Like

JA Escalante so, how about electives? An idea whose time has come.
August 26 at 11:16pm · Like

JA Escalante have I mentioned electives?
August 26 at 11:17pm · Like · 4

Daniel P. O'Connell Ancient Greek and Hebrew are obvious candidates.
August 26 at 11:17pm · Like

Sean Robertson I actually am against adding electives to the undergrad though.
August 26 at 11:17pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson One of the best things about the program was that you could talk to anyone about anything you were taking.
August 26 at 11:18pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele Chinese philosophy
August 26 at 11:18pm · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Electives would work well in a graduate program though, I think.
August 26 at 11:19pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante Megan has already voted for the Taoteching
August 26 at 11:19pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley Popping in with a new look.
August 26 at 11:20pm · Like

Edward Langley . . . and off to Rosary
August 26 at 11:20pm · Like

Nina Rachele Um, the Analects and the Mencius... and at least one Chinese historical work.
August 26 at 11:20pm · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz Hmm....I think I could structure my 10 years toward a PhD....4, 2 and 4... but what would be the degree? Philosophy?
August 26 at 11:20pm · Like

Nina Rachele "Truth"
August 26 at 11:21pm · Like · 1

Edward Langley A Ph.D. in Liberal Arts . . . I'm sure that'd be employable
August 26 at 11:21pm · Like · 5

Nina Rachele I was looking in the Notre Dame course catalog once and that was the name of one of the classes.
August 26 at 11:21pm · Like

Catherine Ryland I suggest starting a grad school or institute in Pittsburgh, and then we can steal Dr Wiker and Dr Sanford (who has Plato and Aristotle literally memorized in Greek, line by line) from Steubenville part time.
August 26 at 11:21pm · Edited · Like

Nina Rachele it was the definition of a facepalm
August 26 at 11:21pm · Like · 2

Edward Langley But, at CUA, a Ph.D. implies seven years of coursework + masters thesis/dissertation. So I doubt anyone would do a 10 year program.
August 26 at 11:22pm · Like

JA Escalante but Nina don't you worry that the Chinese would just get a straw man reading for the sake of dismissing them
August 26 at 11:22pm · Like

Edward Langley (seven years: 4 at TAC, 3 at CUA)
August 26 at 11:23pm · Like

JA Escalante I mean, Hegel is European and he doesnt exactly get a fair reading usually there
August 26 at 11:23pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele I doubt you could dismiss them once you actually read them
August 26 at 11:23pm · Like

Edward Langley The "actually read" is often the problem.
August 26 at 11:24pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele I have only just started really getting into it but I find Confucianism fascinating.
August 26 at 11:24pm · Like

Joshua Kenz Dual Ph.Ds...maybe a Ph.D and an STL.....
August 26 at 11:24pm · Like

JA Escalante Mr Berquist once told me that he thought that Chinese philosophy ws sententious
August 26 at 11:24pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele well, yeah. it's written in a totally different style.
August 26 at 11:25pm · Like

JA Escalante btw there is a wonderful book which reads Aristotle in comparison with Song Neo-Confucianism, called "Aristotle's Man" by SRL Clark. I highly recommend it
August 26 at 11:26pm · Like · 3

Nina Rachele I think it might already be on my list, haha.
August 26 at 11:26pm · Like

Joshua Kenz I read Hegel...I remember the moment something clicked and understanding of him came....it shocked me and I threw the book against the wall, behind my couch....not what I understood, but only I was startled by the click of reason...wasn't expecting to understand a word...maybe that is part of the issue, he is sort of written off as unreadable before we read him...
August 26 at 11:26pm · Like · 3

Edward Langley That would probably be giving math and science short shrift.

How about a series of Ph.Ds
1. Math
2. Biology
3. Chemistry
4. Physics
5. Philosophy (i.e. Metaphysics)
6. Theology

IT could be called "The Eternal Student Program"
August 26 at 11:27pm · Like · 3

Nina Rachele I am starting with this for context and ideas for further reading http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Chinese.../dp/0231109393

Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. 1
www.amazon.com
A collection of seminal primary readings on the social, intellectual, and religious traditions of China, Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 1 has been widely used and praised for almost forty years as an authoritative resource for scholars and students and as a thorough and engaging introductio...
August 26 at 11:28pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante when I first visited TAC aeons ago, the guy I stayed with had Hegel on his desk and I asked him about it (I was going to be impressed that TAC read Hegel) and he said, "oh no, dont worry, no one has to read him"
August 26 at 11:28pm · Edited · Like

Edward Langley "The only program where you get the pleasure of writing six dissertations"
August 26 at 11:28pm · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland I found Hegel sort of poetic rather than philosophical. But maybe that was my imagination.
August 26 at 11:28pm · Like

JA Escalante Nina, I've been studying Chinese philosophy for about 15 years now (and learning classical Chinese) pm me if you need recommendations
August 26 at 11:29pm · Like · 1

Nina Rachele Oh wow that's awesome! I definitely have questions about where to get started with classical Chinese.
August 26 at 11:30pm · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz Mr. Langley, why don't we just start a Catholic commune while we are at it...come, educate, get degrees, and also, teach, and procreate, and go to Church...it would be like über TAC...after all 6 PhD's! Not enough...what about Canon law
August 26 at 11:30pm · Unlike · 5

Catherine Ryland Publish, Pontificate, Procreate or Perish.
August 26 at 11:34pm · Like · 8

Joshua Kenz Wow, I just had a very frightening image.....

...anyhow, switching gears (post padding mostly), Mr. Escalante you and I should discuss this (unknown to me) delving into the East sometime....when I am not so broke I would end up stranded halfway on the way to Berkeley. I have been reading some of the Upanishads recently, thought of reading Gong Sun Long Zi, but didn't find it in English. It brings back certain pleasant memories with the pre-socratics, in many ways...only in fuller form....
August 26 at 11:36pm · Like · 1

JA Escalante anytime Joshua you know where I live
August 26 at 11:38pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Too much, makes B'tia an arrogant jerk.
August 26 at 11:38pm · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Sorry, that's right. You were an arrogant jerk BEFORE you went to Thomas Aquinas College. The mathematical extremism just brought it all to completion.
August 26 at 11:45pm · Like

Catherine Ryland http://www.theonion.com/.../tenth-circle-added-to.../...

Tenth Circle Added To Rapidly Growing Hell
www.theonion.com
CITY OF DIS, NETHER HELL—After years of construction, Corpadverticus, the new circle of Hell, finally opened its doors Monday.
August 26 at 11:45pm · Like · 2

Sean Robertson "Rapidly Growing Hell" gets my vote for the alternate name of this thread.
August 26 at 11:47pm · Like · 5

Catherine Ryland I HAVE found most arrogant jerks that graduated TAC came that way.
August 26 at 11:48pm · Unlike · 4

Catherine Ryland Including me of course.
August 26 at 11:50pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson

August 26 at 11:50pm · Like · 4

Daniel P. O'Connell No scotch?
August 26 at 11:52pm · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Valeatis omnes. In crastinum.
August 26 at 11:52pm · Like

Catherine Ryland All the best reaching 4000.
August 26 at 11:52pm · Like · 1

Kevin Gallagher Hey guys cool conversation; what's it about?
August 26 at 11:54pm · Like

Kevin Gallagher wow thomism and ancient chinese thought
August 26 at 11:55pm · Like · 1

Kevin Gallagher that, for the record, is my jam
August 26 at 11:55pm · Like · 3

Joshua Kenz I am going for my evening constitutional....and by that I mean pray rosary, smoke cigarettes....very TAC of me

Oh good ole Fr. Buckley. Saw him this Sunday. He related a story of a visiting Jewish professor who was shocked by the students smoking. Fr. Buckley said "See, at your place you encourage fornication and prohibit smoking. We prohibit fornication and encourage smoking"

Sums its up very well....
August 26 at 11:56pm · Unlike · 6

Kevin Gallagher Clearly not for me, then; as a good liberal I think smoking is gross
August 26 at 11:58pm · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Daniel P. O'Connell - all I can really contribute right now is a pic of my drink of choice each evening. No scotch tonight, but even if I was going to have some I wouldn't show it. I mean, three nights IN A ROW? Scandalous.

I should have posted the actual bowl of popcorn consumed last night with my kids.
August 26 at 11:59pm · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson TACers think fornication is gross. So there.
Yesterday at 12:02am · Like

Kevin Gallagher So might I think, if I were surrounded by TACers
Yesterday at 12:03am · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Oh yeah? Well...

...

...

[wearied whisper voice] sex. week. [/wearied whisper voice]

I got nothin.'
Yesterday at 12:06am · Like · 1

JA Escalante TAC women are among the loveliest in the world, Mr Gallagher
Yesterday at 12:11am · Like · 2

JA Escalante and that's a manifest fact
Yesterday at 12:11am · Like · 2

JA Escalante the dudes however...
Yesterday at 12:11am · Edited · Like · 2

Kevin Gallagher wait there are women at TAC?
Yesterday at 12:11am · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson We didn't have sex weeks, my friend. We had smoking years.
Yesterday at 12:12am · Like

Kevin Gallagher Honestly my own dislike for Sex Week is far outweighed by my delight at watching everyone else wring their hands over it
Yesterday at 12:12am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I feel so bad for the ladies of TAC. I always have. JA is right.
Yesterday at 12:12am · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson I know - which is why I annoyingly bring it up. Because it is the asinine refutation of everything you say in the vulgar media driven world of shadoes in which we live.
Yesterday at 12:13am · Edited · Like

JA Escalante Beauties and the Beasts
Yesterday at 12:13am · Like

JA Escalante so what about electives?
Yesterday at 12:13am · Edited · Like

Matthew J. Peterson OK, I have to leave this blasphemy and go finish syllabi for the YOUTH OF AMERICA. LEADERS who think GLOBALLY in an increasingly diverse world.
Yesterday at 12:15am · Like · 1

Edward Langley There was a rough patch, but it looks like we've recovered.

Yesterday at 12:15am · Like · 8

Edward Langley Kevin, thomism and ancient chinese thought is just the latest topic this thread has attempted to assassinate.
Yesterday at 12:16am · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson I do want an intro syllabus for Thomism and chinese phil
Yesterday at 12:16am · Like · 1

JA Escalante ^pm me
Yesterday at 12:17am · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Also, for the record, a while back, Megan Caughran claimed that rhetoric can be used for ill as effectively as it can for good. This is false. Aristotle in fact underscores the nexus between the Orator of good character, the good end desired, and effective persuasion. 

I am not sure if TAC teaches that ill ends may be the result of good rhetoric, but I do know they do not really teach rhetoric beyond the freshman year.
Yesterday at 12:17am · Like · 1

Kevin Gallagher best done separately; the ancient stuff is too different from thomism, the lixue stuff too similar; either way it would confuse students
Yesterday at 12:17am · Like · 1

JA Escalante ^coward
Yesterday at 12:17am · Like · 2

Edward Langley Earlier we circled each other on the relation of philosophy and sacred theology. Then there was some banter about literature and fixin' TAC's curriculum. Then we took a pass at rhetoric and poetics. Now we're up to Thomism and Chinese philosophy.
Yesterday at 12:18am · Like · 2

Edward Langley I have a sneaking suspiscion that as time increases, the probability that any this thread will touch upon any topic approaches 1.
Yesterday at 12:18am · Like · 3

Edward Langley I just ran across this gem that is relevant to an earlier time:

"Of course prophecy is a subject which is properly theological but in the measure that theology is an acquired supernatural habitus, it will principally call upon philosophy to make the truths which are beyond us more suited to us, more explicit." -- Msgr. Dionne, "The Necessity of Logic"
Yesterday at 12:20am · Like · 4

Sam Rocha Who's winning?
Yesterday at 12:20am · Like · 1

Edward Langley The people who stay away.
Yesterday at 12:21am · Like · 9

Kevin Gallagher Yale is
Yesterday at 12:21am · Like · 1

JA Escalante unlike Edward
Yesterday at 12:21am · Like · 2

Edward Langley I've been here since the beginning, and read all 3,712 comments
Yesterday at 12:22am · Like · 8

Kevin Gallagher #winning
Yesterday at 12:22am · Like

JA Escalante it's just a street carnival, relax
Yesterday at 12:23am · Like

Edward Langley In fact Jason Van Boom tried to kill this thread about 3500 comments ago
Yesterday at 12:23am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Oh look - I'm done with my syllabus

http://supreme.findlaw.com/documents/federalist/toc.html

FEDERALIST PAPERS - TABLE OF CONTENTS
supreme.findlaw.com
Find a local lawyer and free legal information at FindLaw.com
Yesterday at 12:24am · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson All I have to do is write THE WHOLE TIME at the top of the page and we're good.
Yesterday at 12:25am · Like

Sean Robertson The amazing thing is that we all, I assume, live within 3 time zones (Pater excepted?), and yet overnight this thread doesn't stop.
Yesterday at 12:26am · Like

JA Escalante Jason is in Estonia or somewhere like that
Yesterday at 12:26am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau There are a few Europeans. Jason Van Boom -- yes, Estonia
Yesterday at 12:27am · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson I'm really excited about this book, speaking of China:

http://supreme.findlaw.com/documents/federalist/toc.html

FEDERALIST PAPERS - TABLE OF CONTENTS
supreme.findlaw.com
Find a local lawyer and free legal information at FindLaw.com
Yesterday at 12:27am · Like · 1

Edward Langley Peregrine Bonaventure's powers of endurance are phenomenal: he takes it all, ad hominems, insults, refutations without ever giving up a point.
Yesterday at 12:28am · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Seriously - this one:

http://mychinesebooks.com/frmo-yan-grenouilles-la.../...

Mo Yan, “Frogs” and birth control policy.
mychinesebooks.com
Mo Yan is probably the greatest living writer of Chinese nationality. His latest novel, "Frogs", is devoted to his aunt ,77 years old, who helped his birth - like 9983 other babies - and, half angel, half-demon, was also responsible for the local birth control policy. As such, she has performed thou…
Yesterday at 12:28am · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau And he must live in 3 time zones
Yesterday at 12:28am · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson http://www.spiegel.de/.../nobel-literature-prize-laureate...

Nobel Laureate Mo Yan: 'I Am Guilty' - SPIEGEL ONLINE
www.spiegel.de
For the first time since receiving the Nobel Prize in literature, controversial Chinese author Mo Yan has consented to an interview. Many have accused him of being too close to the regime. But he rejects the charge and finds sharp words for his detractors.
Yesterday at 12:29am · Like · 1

JA Escalante Mo Yan! he's great
Yesterday at 12:29am · Like

JA Escalante Republic of Wine is fantastic
Yesterday at 12:29am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure ANOTHER poignant error in the Charter of TAC is the definition of wisdom. The college defines metaphysics as qualified wisdom, and revelation as unqualified wisdom. This distinction is false. Even Wisdom as revelation is qualified as a theological virtue of intellectual assent to all that has been revealed, including the theological dogma of grace perfecting nature, and the sacred science perfecting the metaphysical, sapiential sciences. In this light, Fides et Ratio calls for an interaction between sacred theology and more contemporary Christian philosophies to the extent that they are sapiential.
Yesterday at 12:32am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau I don't know Edward Fesser (perhaps I should? maybe he is on this thread?) but a local professor just wrote this review of Fesser's book on metaphysics. http://www.catholicworldreport.com/.../metaphysics_and...

Metaphysics and the Case Against Scientism | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views
www.catholicworldreport.com
Metaphysics and the Case Against Scientism Edward Feser’s new book, "Scholastic Metaphysics", makes a strong case for the contemporary relevance of St. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophical reflections on Aristotle Christopher S. Morrissey
Yesterday at 12:32am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Feser. He's a champ.
Yesterday at 12:33am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau Maybe tag him on this thread.
Yesterday at 12:34am · Unlike · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau ha
Yesterday at 12:34am · Like

Edward Langley Peregrine, I don't think you know what "qualified" means.
Yesterday at 12:35am · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure This is nicely coupled with Lumen Fidei, an encyclical that has a metaphor right in its title.

The point being that love is the center of Faith, and Faith perfects reason, and math has nought to do with love, so while it may express the laws of the universe, it can enslave the spirit of man when offered in disproportionate helping.

Good night, ladies;
Ladies, good night.
Yesterday at 12:38am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Edward Feser - but he doesn't have a personal FB account, I don't think.
Yesterday at 12:41am · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau It is almost embarrassing to allow outsiders in on this.
Yesterday at 12:41am · Like · 1

JA Escalante Kevin is an outsider, and how
Yesterday at 12:42am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Almost. I welcome the Gentiles.
Yesterday at 12:42am · Like · 2

Megan Baird This thread is STILL ALIVE?!
Yesterday at 12:43am · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau Someone must post a summary about every 500 posts for the sake of newcomers
Yesterday at 12:43am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson We won't be judged any worse than we already are, really.
Yesterday at 12:43am · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau Megan - it has a life of its own.
Yesterday at 12:43am · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Um Megan Baird - this thread is outside of time.
Yesterday at 12:43am · Like · 4

Edward Langley At this point, the count is all that matters 
Yesterday at 12:44am · Like

Thomas Quackenbush The summary would be the length of the reality.
Yesterday at 12:45am · Unlike · 3

Edward Langley It might even be longer
Yesterday at 12:46am · Like · 1

JA Escalante like an Ent's name
Yesterday at 12:46am · Unlike · 6

Jody Haaf Garneau The problem is that our summary would not match Peregrine (Scott)'s. So 2 summaries?
Yesterday at 12:46am · Like

Thomas Quackenbush Which would actually be awesome for the length of the thread, if the summarizer broke it into individually-posted bullet points.
Yesterday at 12:46am · Unlike · 2

JA Escalante Thomas, what do you think of electives for TAC?
Yesterday at 12:47am · Edited · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau For sure. that was a problem earlier on (lengthy posts) we'd be over 5000 if they bulleted it
Yesterday at 12:47am · Like

Megan Baird Somebody should print this thread out and create a volume of 'TAC Dialogues.'
Yesterday at 12:48am · Like · 1

Sean Robertson I'd be interested to know how many unique commenters there have been on this thread. Comment statistics for individuals would be cool too. Ed Langley, I'm banking on you having some sort of magic math formula/graph to make this a reality.
Yesterday at 12:53am · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell Someday someone will write a TAC Thesis on this thread.
Yesterday at 1:03am · Like · 2

Megan Baird When I go for my second Master's, this will be the subject of my dissertation.
Yesterday at 1:06am · Like · 4

Edward Langley There are 112 unique commenters (up to my last graph)
Yesterday at 1:18am · Edited · Like · 3

Edward Langley The top ten are:

615 Peregrine Bonaventure
435 Michael Beitia
305 John Ruplinger
234 JA Escalante
234 Edward Langley
196 Daniel Lendman
178 Catherine Ryland
142 Matthew J. Peterson
122 Pater Edmund
97 Isak Benedict
92 Sam Rocha
Yesterday at 1:20am · Edited · Like · 6

Edward Langley (there's eleven in the list because JA and I were tied)
Yesterday at 1:21am · Like · 1

Sam Rocha 93
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like

Sam Rocha 94
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like

Sam Rocha 95
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like

Sam Rocha 96
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like

Sam Rocha 97
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like

Sam Rocha 98
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like

Sam Rocha 99
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like

Sam Rocha 100
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson How's the syllabi coming along, Sam Rocha?
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like · 2

Edward Langley Those who attempt to game the system will be disqualified
Yesterday at 1:23am · Like · 8

Sam Rocha Finished. Sent. Now on to this grant and a shitty preface...
Yesterday at 1:24am · Like

Megan Baird Oh, Edward, you're no fun.
Yesterday at 1:25am · Like · 1

JA Escalante Edward tally the ad hominems
Yesterday at 1:25am · Like · 7

Edward Langley I'd probably get an automatic Ph.D. in Computer Science if I could do that.
Yesterday at 1:26am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Is there an appeals process?
Yesterday at 1:27am · Like · 1

Megan Baird Tally the misspellings of Beitia's name...
Yesterday at 1:28am · Like · 2

Edward Langley Next ten are:
91 Jody Haaf Garneau
84 Nina Rachele
80 Marina Shea
77 Lauren Ogrodnick
62 Philip D. Knuffke
60 Joel HF
49 Megan Caughron
39 Jason Van Boom
37 Daniel P. O'Connell
33 Tom Sundaram
Yesterday at 1:29am · Like · 1

Marina Shea Me! Did I win something?
Yesterday at 1:30am · Like

JA Escalante the first time ever that Tom Sundaram talked the *least*
Yesterday at 1:30am · Like · 11

JA Escalante i mean this is really a moment
Yesterday at 1:30am · Like · 5

Marina Shea Aw it's cause Tom moved continents.
Yesterday at 1:31am · Like · 1

Edward Langley And I think Tom Sundaram intentionally unfollowed this thread.
Yesterday at 1:31am · Like · 2

Edward Langley Kinda like Isak Benedict and Jason Van Boom
Yesterday at 1:31am · Like · 3

Marina Shea Probs
Yesterday at 1:32am · Like

Sam Rocha When do we organize a conference at TAC on this thread?
Yesterday at 1:32am · Unlike · 3

Joshua Kenz Hey I didn't even make the list....but then again, I work 5:30 am to night and don't play around at work....
Yesterday at 1:32am · Like · 2

Marina Shea I can talk about music in the Aveterna. I've thought about that a lot
Yesterday at 1:32am · Like

Isak Benedict Yeah, I did, but it still popped up in my feed somehow. Maybe too many friends of mine are involved for me to avoid it? I don't get notifications for it any more. Although I do rather want to stay involved. It's kinda fun.
Yesterday at 1:34am · Like

Edward Langley The next batch (after which accuracy probably make measurement useless) are:

31 Sean Robertson
27 Joshua Kenz
24 John Kunz
20 Tim Cantu
20 Clayton Brockman
19 Joe Zepeda
16 Katie Duda
16 Emily Norppa
15 Liam Collins
15 John Herreid
15 Claire Keeler
13 Erik Bootsma
12 Aaron Gigliotti
10 Dominique Martin
Yesterday at 1:34am · Edited · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Those lists are cool. Of course, they don't account for comment length. If that were to be factored in, I wonder how the standings would change in terms of sheer output?
Yesterday at 1:36am · Like · 2

Edward Langley (Also, FYI: facebook makes you solve a CAPTCHA when you tag a bunch of people)
Yesterday at 1:36am · Like

Edward Langley Maybe tomorrow, Isak
Yesterday at 1:37am · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz Langley, you spammer you
Yesterday at 1:37am · Like · 2

Isak Benedict They want to make sure you're not a robot. Did you pass?
Yesterday at 1:37am · Like

JA Escalante I wonder if anyone's unfriended any of us for what we've done to their newsfeed/tickers
Yesterday at 1:37am · Edited · Unlike · 11

Sam Rocha Wait, are we robots?
Yesterday at 1:37am · Like

JA Escalante i have a strong suspicion about one participant
Yesterday at 1:38am · Like · 2

Isak Benedict PB is definitely a robot.
Yesterday at 1:38am · Like · 1

Marina Shea Yes Sam .
Yesterday at 1:39am · Like · 1

Isak Benedict "The humans are dead"
Yesterday at 1:39am · Like · 5

Sam Rocha Actually I've been grooming this thread to use it to promote my album on Thursday, SUCKAS!!!
Yesterday at 1:39am · Like · 2

Sam Rocha The real troll emerges.
23 hours ago · Like

Edward Langley I don't know

Pro:

If I failed to pass the CAPTCHA, then my comment wouldn't be posted
My comment was posted.
Therefore, I'm not a robot (notice the enthymeme here)

Con:

CAPTCHAs are illegible for robots
I found Facebook's CAPTCHA nearly illegible.
Therefore, I am nearly a robot.
23 hours ago · Like · 4

Marina Shea I'm still convinced at graduation Steubenville kids get the magic power to materialize acoustic guitars at opportune moments.
23 hours ago · Edited · Like · 4

Joshua Kenz My ticker (and hence "following" this thread) automatically stops whenever Peregrine posts....that is how I know he posted. So just block him, and it won't show up in your newfeed/ticker...unless you starting posting in it again...but that counts as consent right?

Mr. Benedict, not so sure. Robot originally referred to slave labor, implying actual productivity....is something a robot when it doesn't produce anything of value? It is more like an automate vuvuzela.....
23 hours ago · Like · 2

JA Escalante Brian Dragoo I know you want in this how long can you resist
23 hours ago · Like · 6

Sam Rocha I've never blocked anyone, ever, in social media. I don't know why not. Mainly because I need any bit of attention I can possibly get.
23 hours ago · Like · 1

Edward Langley I grew up in the shadow of FUS (three uncles on the faculty: Regis Martin, Mark Roberts and Charles Fisher).

Anyway, I went to some show at Franciscan once. It was opened by a student band called "End of Silence," which was slightly ironic since that silence should never have ended.
23 hours ago · Like · 6

Megan Baird When do we organize an All-College seminar about this thread?
23 hours ago · Like · 2

JA Escalante Brian what do you think of adding electives at TAC?
23 hours ago · Like · 1

Isak Benedict I've actually made friends on this thread! Which is cool! Peregrine Falcon tried to friend me too, but I don't like him very much. Maybe he can persuade me with syllogisms why I should be his facebook friend?
23 hours ago · Like · 4

Edward Langley Boo
23 hours ago · Like

JA Escalante Edward is really all for this notion
23 hours ago · Like

Sam Rocha Woah. That was Oscar's band rock/rap band.
23 hours ago · Like

Sam Rocha That was my era. Did I play that night?
23 hours ago · Like

Edward Langley I don't know, it was followed by a juggling act.
23 hours ago · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau You don't remember Sam?
23 hours ago · Like

Isak Benedict I love juggling.
23 hours ago · Like

Sam Rocha Because of this thread I befriended Jody Haaf Garneau and found out that my wife is old friends with the present director of evangelization in our diocese.
23 hours ago · Unlike · 4

Edward Langley Some latino dude who was famous for the number of items he could keep in the air.
23 hours ago · Like · 1

Sam Rocha When I was a student at FUS, let's just say that I was not a big fan of sobriety.
23 hours ago · Like · 2

Isak Benedict That juggler would have done well on this thread then
23 hours ago · Like · 1

Sam Rocha Not me. Wrong Mexican.
23 hours ago · Like · 3

Megan Baird I really think this thread is the cyber equivalent of chatting on the Smokers' Patio.
23 hours ago · Unlike · 10

JA Escalante exactly
23 hours ago · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson DINGDINGDINGDING - we have a WINNER
23 hours ago · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Sam - boy if I had a nickel for every time I heard that one... 
23 hours ago · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson One of my favorite moments on smoker's patio was one fine day when two dogs began making love in the middle of campus, right en route to the commons when people were arriving after class and for mass, etc.
23 hours ago · Edited · Like · 6

Megan Baird Where's Rich Marotti when you need him?
23 hours ago · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau Yes, thanks to this thread, I can help Sam Rocha make some new friends in the archdiocese. I think I've talked some friends into attending the CD release party.
23 hours ago · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau I think someone should tag some current TAC seniors (or juniors). There must be at least 2 dozen thesis topics here (and part of the research has been done)
23 hrs · Unlike · 4

Matthew J. Peterson A mangy mutt who was in desperately in love with a fine, pure bred rottweiler. Just wouldn't leave her alone. And in the midst of this questionably consensual contact there were people walking by en route to the commons in dress code trying to ignore the, ahem, "elephant" in the corner.

We at smoker's patio, on the other hand, were not ignoring much of anything. No. No, we were savoring every last drop of those glorious minutes.
23 hrs · Edited · Like · 6

Dominique Martin O my gosh. No way. What are you all doing here?!?! I seem to have been tagged a few comments ago but not sure why...
23 hrs · Like · 2

Jody Haaf Garneau Because you Dominique Martin made 10 comments. (now 11)
23 hrs · Like

Jody Haaf Garneau We've run stats on this thread
23 hrs · Like · 2

Joshua Kenz This reminded me of this

Edward Langley -http://www.politicsforum.org/.../flame_warriors/flame_40.php

Peregrine- http://www.politicsforum.org/.../flame_warriors/flame_77.php

et alii http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/
23 hrs · Unlike · 6

Edward Langley This thread comes back to haunt participants
23 hrs · Like · 8

Dominique Martin Wow. So is it still Scott vs. The Reasonable People regarding how non-catholic TAC is or have we moved on to greener pastures? Not that I really want to know. I think.
23 hrs · Like · 4

JA Escalante both
23 hrs · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Ed! thesis! Your wife is going to kill all of us!
23 hrs · Like · 5

Joshua Kenz Such violence..."but Christian violence, good violence"
23 hrs · Like · 4

Isak Benedict Any analysis of the Never-Ending Thread is rendered impossible by the very fact that while said analysis is occurring, the thread itself is growing comment by comment, and hurtling closer and closer towards self-realization and true unity - once a self-and-othering sort of thing, now imminently shedding the skin of duality.

Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen. We are exiting the cave.
23 hrs · Like · 14

JA Escalante see this just proves Hegel right about everything
23 hrs · Like · 3

Joshua Kenz Well we had the negation of the negation moment a while back.....now we approach the absolute
23 hrs · Like · 6

Sam Rocha German negativity will make sense of all this nonsense.
23 hrs · Like

Joshua Kenz I need to retire...I fully expect you guys to hit 5,000 by the time I get home from work tomorrow.
23 hrs · Edited · Like · 6

Isak Benedict It's a new era, folks. The World Spirit is about to look in the mirror.
23 hrs · Like · 6

Anne Marie Hahahahaha. Holy cow. This is insane! Here I thought that I might be the last comment back when we were at 300. Oh my.
23 hrs · Unlike · 7

Sam Rocha Has anyone thought to consult the Guinness now I'm distracted and thinking about beer...
23 hrs · Like · 3

Isak Benedict The Never-Ending Thread knows no "last" comment, Anne Marie. As it is Threadness itself, and that by which all other threads are threads, it does not exist in the particular and therefore cannot be bounded, having no beginning or end.
23 hrs · Like · 10

Michaella Pape This thread is still going? When I checked it last week there were under 400 comments. This is quite marvelous and impressive!
23 hrs · Like · 4

Sam Rocha No. There is nothing going on here.
23 hrs · Like · 4

Isak Benedict I feel a lot of love in this room right now
23 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel P. O'Connell

23 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Hey this seems like the perfect time to tell you all about a very special high-profit, no-risk, multi-level marketing opportunity venture I'm currently working on. It's a simple franchise investment, folks. A small initial gift gets your foot in the door right away, but you've got to act now!

Then all you have to do to be a part of it is bring in two - just two - subsequent investors and you'll be increasing your profit in no time. And you don't even have to worry about market saturation - this opportunity exists outside of time!

I only mention it because you're my friends and I wanted to give you all the first chance at some World Spirit Networking income!
23 hrs · Like · 5

Daniel Lendman I was reflecting on something you said above, Isak. I have been trying to loosely chronicle the "history" of the thread. However, being outside of time, it really isn't history. As I said above, there is an "above and below" but not a before and after, strictly speaking. It strikes me that this bears a remarkable similarity to either the structure of heaven or of hell as Dante recounts them. 
Tom Sundaram, it might be time for you to tell us about Dante again.
23 hrs · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Apparently this is my 198th comment
23 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman For my 199th I will say that I am surprised that Aaron Dunkel hasn't been showing us any love on this thread.
23 hrs · Like · 4

Sam Rocha Isn't this ^^ cause for disqualification?
23 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Whatever the structure is Daniel, it's totally not a pyramid!
23 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman For my 200th post I will repeat the most important and substantive thing I have contributed to this thread:
TAC is the best!!!!!!! 
I am the best!!!! 
USA, USA, USA!!
23 hrs · Like · 7

Sam Rocha He's got a certain style.
23 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict He does. He may be useful to us here at World Spirit Networking - Division of Sacred Theology and Pep Rallies.
23 hrs · Like · 2

Edward Langley Daniel's 198th comment was borderline. But the others had actual content.
23 hrs · Like · 3

Aaron Dunkel I didn't want 1500 notifications
23 hrs · Like · 5

Tom Sundaram I would, but I am gonna be busy in Siena today, praying to St Catherine for your collected souls.
23 hrs · Like · 8

Tom Sundaram Aaron Dunkel - you're telling me! I was tagged in the original status!
23 hrs · Like · 5

Michaella Pape I attempted to catch up - this thread is really too much! Some day I will read all of the comments, which can make one feel "outside of time" only to have that seemingness dissolved by a glance at the clock. Good night!
23 hrs · Like · 2

Emily Norppa Tom Sundaram: What about our individual souls?
23 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell The agent intellect is ONE, Emily!!
23 hrs · Like · 3

Tom Sundaram Collective Soul is a fun band.  But yes, individually too.
23 hrs · Like · 3

Isak Benedict Do join me! Everyone is invited! Except Peregrine

23 hrs · Like · 5

Daniel Lendman For my 201st comment, I would like to note that my 198th comment was meant only as a reflection on the diligent efforts of Edward Langley's documentation of the comments on this thread. You may now all expect at least 99 more comments from me, so that I can end on a good solid 300.
23 hrs · Like · 3

Isak Benedict Step into my officeness, Daniel. I'd like to discuss your future with our company.
23 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict And past, actually.
23 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict And present, if it existed.
23 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict If that sounds like you're getting fired, it's because you're not.
23 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Aaron Dunkel, you should not stay away! 
I want to talk about why metaphors aren't syllogisms again.
22 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell Good night.

22 hrs · Like · 3

John Kunz I know it was 3 hours and 648 comments ago... But Matthew, I defy your recall of the greatest smokers patio moment of all time. In fact, it was a sunny day, and a certain Jay Krautmann was sitting there with his guitar, along side Herbert Hartman, you, sir, Mr Peterson, myself, & several of the other usual suspects... At this point, a certain Karen zedlick approached and engaged in conversation (something heretical & non-magesterial, I'm sure). At one point, she requests the guitar & says, "mr Peterson, may I play for you? But of course, if I play... I must sing as well..." 

Nothing was the same after that...
20 hrs · Like · 5

Michael Beitia I remember that, Kunz....... and what I love is I still get to be number two in comments after taking 12 hours off at a time. (number one if you consider non-robots).
And Edward Langley, I'm sure I've won the "most ad hominems leveled at" competition.
Daniel Lendman, metaphors are syllogisms, if one can't reason well.... case in point?
18 hrs · Like · 2

Pater Edmund On the theses volume front. Which of these two titles is better: 1Learning and Discipleship: Undergraduate Theses from Thomas Aquinas College
2 Lac Ab Uberibus Almae Matris: Undergraduate Work from a Catholic Liberal Arts College?
Also add any better ones here: https://docs.google.com/.../1PutRC7wDJYJ1XughyMKZ.../edit... Also: The nominations are pretty heavy on the recent years, as Joel HF has observed. We need some nominations from the good old days.
Thomas Aquinas College Theses Volume - Google Docs
docs.google.com
17 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Michael Beitia As Good Hegelians, Pater, we realize that the more recent theses are intrinsically better. (that and I think the thread is top heavy in terms of the participants)
17 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger how embarrassing. Off to do penance. Is that 100 years for every post in the 10th circle, do you suppose?
17 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia we just call them "partial" now
17 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger considering this was about TAC theses, a remarkable number of comments about Chrirtendom theses like "how a metaphor is a syllogism" which i think also demonstrates the correctness of Matthew's observation about the strength of TAC's curriculum.
17 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Metaphor is a syllogism works if you can't do math.... but can only speak in broad lyrical vistas of the TL:DR variety. 
And I love me some rhetorical points. I may make a few....
17 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger i think Christendom theses win with respect to producing unending threads. They also may make one more employable irl. 
17 hrs · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Funny - in all these thousands no one has brought up the nerdy pick up line comment even once.
17 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I think most (?) of us are married? Maybe?
17 hrs · Unlike · 2

Daniel Lendman John Nieto's thesis was supposed to be quite good.
17 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Well, that and the slideshow makes it really hard to sit through for all the thesis titles Peterson. I think I read three or four...
17 hrs · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman I like the first title better, Pater Edmund.
17 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure It's amusing how the founders of Thomas Aquinas College believed they discovered the one thing wrong with the world and the Church, and that they were the only ones who discovered it, and the college is the only place you can find the answer:

Aristotle's notion of causality, embedded in the Summa.

Because academia and the Church lost sight of this, we have things like modern science, abortion and divorce and the folk Mass.

Aristotelian Causality is the drum the bang over and over again.

But the world today believes in cause and effect. It just lost sight of the first cause.

And banging their drum does nothing to correct this.

Because the world disbelieves because of lack of grace, not metaphysics; as the Church state, grace is needed.

And grace is an effect to the gift of faith and a response of love, which presents a whole new world of learning, which TAC ignores.
17 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia How about "Irresponsible Agent Intellect: Wild Speculation sans Magisterium"
17 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Speaking of banging drums... welcome back Scott.
17 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia or better yet: "Theological Hubris: Metaphor as Syllogism"
17 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia (he just came back so I wouldn't take over first place in number of comments)
17 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman I think one of the first things I learned at TAC was that I don't need grace. That is why they offer mass 4 times a day; confession 8 times, adoration daily, and have 4 full time chaplains.
17 hrs · Unlike · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Math is useful for college accreditation; but harmful because it has made fluff out of everything else.
17 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia ^stop reasoning^
How about: "Mathematics is Dangerous: 5 Ways and 3 Persons make 7 virtues"
17 hrs · Like · 6

Daniel Lendman Generally the homilies at TAC are about the geometric perfection and proportions that can be discerned in our better-than-Christendom's-chapel.
17 hrs · Unlike · 6

Michael Beitia ah.... here goes: "Non-Euclidean Theology: Metaphorical Syllogisms in Magisterial Holistic Grace"
17 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman It is a commonly held position among the faculty and students that Prop. 1, 47 was the first real icon of the Trinity.
17 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman And that Euclid was Aristotle's pen name.
17 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Hang on, hang on.... I thought 2 11 demonstrated the Trinity
17 hrs · Unlike · 5

Michael Beitia by way of construction
17 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Well, that's fair.
17 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman 1,47 just showed us what we were looking for.
17 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 2 11 makes cuts the AB into the golden ratio by constructing the golden ratio on the original line, turned at right angles and by extension, thus showing how God proceeds from himself, as the Son from the Father in order that the cut, the golden cut, produce that which is perfect in the Holy Spirit
17 hrs · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman And Scott says math isn't important for theology!
16 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Michael St. Patrick's metaphor-proof is a better syllogism: God is a shamrock. Therefore, there are three Persons and one God.
16 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure I think you believe if you go to Mass, and trust the plan, then God will give you grace to become a right-thinking and truly liberal Catholic man of leisure, and you will have the answer to the world's problem.

This is the form of political correctness.
16 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger "What the magesterium says is metaphor" and "how drawing conclusions from magesteriaj propositions is heretical?" "whether Euclid was baptized and should be studied at a magesterium approved college, sans discursive reason but argued assertively by metaphorical syllogism?"
16 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman If you actually paid attention to what I write, you wouldn't have to guess at what I believe. You would just ask me and I would tell you.
16 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure And being a cult.
16 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman If you actually paid attention to what I write, you wouldn't have to guess at what I believe. You would just ask me and I would tell you.
16 hrs · Like · 4

Michael Beitia Daniel, don't you remember consecration at curfew in the dorms? St. Aristotle and St. Euclid were promised our undying devotion. 
Gnosis gnosis gnosis
16 hrs · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure TAC reads so much Aristotle and Thomas because... they believe causality is the one thing that went missing from the world, and they need to bring it back.
16 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia That's why Pope Leo XIII recommended it. Lost causality. . .
16 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia plus, I figure by 4000 comments I can get close to 500 personally, for a robust 12ish%
16 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia stop stop stop. It wasn't for lost causality, it was for lost syllogistic metaphorical holistic magisterial grace
16 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Scott, it is interesting if you actually read what The Founders of TAC said, they don't mention causality as a reason for starting TAC. 
It is not surprising, therefore, that under the pressure of ever widening vocationalism and humanism, Catholic education, immersed in this tide, is capsizing. Blurred in its vision, it cannot well distinguish and justify true liberal education apart from vocational and professional training, in a time when technical and technological progress seem to be everything that is commonly regarded as worthwhile. Correlated with man’s hope in technology is his despair in knowing the truth about reality, which desperation gave rise originally to humanism. Even against the humanistic part of modern “liberal education,” wherein man turns back upon himself for the meaning of all things, which view always favors the “world” against God, and man against his Creator, the benighted Catholic college has found itself defenseless. This capitulation shows on the one hand the general lassitude and dullness to which we are all heir, but on the other hand it shows more importantly what was noted above: the Catholic college has never really understood itself, has never, that is, thought out the exigencies of a liberal education which is undertaken in subordination to the teaching of the Church, and which has as its aim an intellectual perfection which is possible and proper to the Catholic alone. Such an education demands that all the parts of the curriculum not ordered to technical concerns should be conducted with a view to understanding the Catholic faith, and that the Faith itself should be the light under which the curriculum is conducted.
16 hrs · Like · 4

Michael Beitia but they mean causality #gnosis
16 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Also, here Brain Kelly talks about why we study Mathematics:
http://thomasaquinas.edu/.../newsl.../winter-2011_web.pdf...
16 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman The Great Dr. McArthur says about why they founded the college:
"We wanted a college that was seriously intellectual. We wanted, as such, to frame a curriculum that would be possible but demanding. At the same time, we wanted it to be deeply Catholic, which is impossible without a serious curriculum to match. People can have good will and be very good people, but there is no education unless the mind is developed. It is possible to have an institution with Catholic rules, a Catholic demeanor, good Catholics as teachers and students, but yet fail to educate. This is what we wanted to address."
16 hrs · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman From what the Angelic Neumayr says, it almost looks like the reason we study Aquinas and Aristotle is because we are following the Magesterium:
"Among scholars St. Thomas is a recognized master. For the Church he is the Theologian. The Church, as the popes have told us, has embraced his mind as her own — and this because he has unfolded the knowledge of ordinary experience, a knowledge shared by all men, with an almost unique fidelity to our shared experience. St. Thomas in his turn called Aristotle “The Philosopher:” the voice of the human mind itself. Speaking of Aristotle, then, Cardinal Newman said, “He told us our thoughts before we were ever born.”

Going from what we all know implicitly about the visibilia to an explicit account is not easy — and few, no matter their brilliance, have done it with perfect fidelity. Even the great St. Augustine concedes that though he knows what “time” is, he is at a loss when asked to explain it. St. Thomas and, perhaps, Aristotle before him were unique among men in this genius.

With good reason the College organized the course of studies to proceed “ad mentem Thomae.” This is to seek out an understanding of things according to the mind of Thomas; and not in any of the Neo-Thomisms that lived briefly and died in schools. This is to say that the College truly seeks to make its students disciples of Thomas. Discipleship asks more than a mere acquaintance with this master’s thought. His thought squares with our own and becomes our own."
16 hrs · Unlike · 5

Daniel Lendman ...but I heard from someone, once, that TAC doesn't care about the magesterium. Huh?
16 hrs · Unlike · 1

Michael Beitia Are you talking about the overt TAC doctrine
or the secret doctrine
#gnosis
16 hrs · Like · 6

Daniel Lendman Shockingly, Neumayr goes on to imply that sanctity and moral rectitude are important:
Question: But why this unique role for St. Thomas? Why among the rich minds of the renowned scholars should Thomas stand out? Aren’t they all geniuses of a sort?

Dr. Neumayr: Yes, but Thomas was not only a genius, he was also a saint. This can hardly be claimed for most of the Masters. But you might ask what difference does sanctity make? Is it merely an inspirational aspect that it brings? Or does it bear on the intellectual life itself?

The moral, in fact, has a central part in the intellectual life. Most of the more serious errors in judgment are more moral than intellectual. It is a moral failing rather than an intellectual one to claim that you see what you do not see, or that you do not see what you do see. The fallen nature of man makes a dogmatism favoring our own ideas almost irresistible. Those who would insist that a mere hypothesis be absolute are claiming to see what they do not see. The sanctity and the genius of St. Thomas would give him a certain immunity from claiming that he sees what he in fact does not see.

This moral rectitude in the pursuit of Wisdom ad mentem Thomae, in my humble opinion, is inextricably tied up with the mission of the College, and its future depends on this discipleship to our patron.

What does this mean for discipleship? You can’t be a disciple of just anyone, but only one you take to be both wise and honest. St. Thomas makes clear, for example, that the five proofs for God’s existence set out in his Summa Theologiae are irrefutable. By his genius he sees the truth of the demonstrations; by his sanctity he does not lie. We, his students, though we may struggle, have every expectation that we may come to see as he does that God must exist and cannot not exist.
16 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman It is just amazing what one can find when one actually pays attention to what people say and do.
16 hrs · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Last time I looked, the First Cause is as alive in the world today as when God said let there be light. 

But alas, you maintain, it is not God's Nature that lacks Nature's God, but modern man's understanding of nature.

Therefore, Math!

The language of causal science.

***

How has this proposal played out? Has it fixed the problem? No, not even among those who believed the problem was the problem.
16 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia ^just keep asserting it, maybe then someone will believe you^
16 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Scott, are you drunk?
16 hrs · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia Daniel, you show remarkable patience trying to reason, quoting people, linking articles. Don't you know that you just have to keep asserting the same thing, and it's all cool. I trust you
16 hrs · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia and math isn't the language of causal science, its the language of casual science. Like science in yoga pants
16 hrs · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman I am not sure that anyone who knows about the First Cause would ever think that there was a problem with the First Cause not being in the world. Because if the First Cause were not there, there would be no there, there for it not be in. 

Scott, maybe if you did more metaphysics you would avoid such an embarrassing mistake. Fortunately, you are around TAC students and we don't care much when people make mistakes like that. We are a rather tollerant and patient lot. in that regard.
16 hrs · Unlike · 6

John Ruplinger Daniel, i disagree on one point. The universities did once know what they were about. They over time forgot as they strayed.
16 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Keep banging those drums of Aristotelean causality. Those Whoville drums.
16 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman John, I think I and the founders agree with that, mostly.
16 hrs · Edited · Like

John Ruplinger it only takes one or two generations. Bede observed that. It is evident two when the jesuits were suppressed.
16 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Scott, I am pretty sure it is too early in the day for you to be so inebriated.
16 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I just did a page search for "Aristotelian causality" and got no hits. The only thing close was "Aristotelean causality" [sic]

Who is beating a drum?
16 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman In seriousness, Scott, this seems to be typical of your discourse. It seems that you seldom really want to know what other people think.
16 hrs · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia I call it "Linda Blair on facebook" 
It's all fine and dandy until he disagrees with someone..... then the head spins around
16 hrs · Like · 5

Daniel Lendman I am going to have some quality time with the Mrs. I will be back, I am sure.
16 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I'll just stick to ducking "work" for a little while longer
16 hrs · Like

Nina Rachele did you guys go back to this topic so we could hit 4000 faster?
16 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia it was suggested..... elsewhere.....
16 hrs · Like · 1

Tim Cantu Damn you, Edward, for tagging me back into this madness.
16 hrs · Like · 5

Michael Beitia Joel HF wrote it best.
"The call of the cthreadulhu: 'That thread is not dead, which can eternal lie. Yet with strange aeons even death may die.' To gaze upon it, is to know madness, and to comment, is to never escape."
16 hrs · Edited · Like · 5

Catherine Ryland Pater Edmund I like 1) better, though 2) gets points for Latin and awesomeness.
16 hrs · Like · 6

John Ruplinger you remind me, michael, of a thesis i meant to propose for discussion: "the neverending thesis" or "how one escapes the never ending thread" or "we are stuck in the 10 th circle: what dante would do."
16 hrs · Like · 1

Tim Cantu I remember Mr. DeLuca telling us two things in Junior Philosophy:

(1) perfume is meant to remind you of sex. look at the ads!
(2) math is better than the magisterium because you can prove the trinity from it. Trinity has three right there in the name, and that's math!
16 hrs · Edited · Like · 5

Joel HF Beitia -- What'd I write best?
16 hrs · Like

Sean Plus Anne Schniederjan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pafY6sZt0FE

Grateful Dead - Truckin'
Grateful Dead - Truckin' Garcia;Lesh;Weir;Hunter Lyrics:Truckin got my chips cashed in. keep truckin, like the do-dah man Together, more or less in line, jus...
15 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman "so many,
I had not thought that death had undone, so many."
15 hrs · Like · 2

John Hall Tim Cantu, I was in your section and I can verify that we did in fact learn the aforementioned.
15 hrs · Like · 3

Tim Cantu ^it's hard to believe, but it is indeed true.
15 hrs · Like · 1

Nina Rachele you guys got practical life information in junior philosophy? so jealous right now.
15 hrs · Like · 1

Thomas Quackenbush http://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw

St. Patrick's Bad Analogies
The problem with using analogies to explain the Holy Trinity is that you always end up confessing some ancient heresy. Let the patron saint of the Irish show...
15 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I thought I quoted it earlier, Joel.... plus you need to get back into the thread. Time's a-wastin
15 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Any thesis yet on how God breathed life into a dead monkey?
14 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Is that your excuse?
14 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I'll be here all day, tip your waitresses
14 hrs · Like · 2

Tim Cantu It's all covered in senior lab (the monkey thing, that is.)
14 hrs · Like · 3

Tim Cantu (did I miss somewhere in the previous 1000 comments where someone made the dead monkey claim?)
14 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Lab? I thought it was seminar.... so much has changes [glances out into the distance wistfully]
14 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia quomodo magna simiae?
14 hrs · Like

Tim Cantu I didn't pay a lot of attention to any of senior year, so that's probably right.
14 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict You're all working for me now. Gnosis gnosis
14 hrs · Like · 2

John Hall gosh, it's called "Natural Science" now, at least that's what the kids tell me.
14 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 2

Michael Beitia wait wait...... you're telling me that you can reason to things, natural things, from the things of nature? 
*mind blown*
14 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF Re theses, Pater Edmund, I think my wife's suggestion of asking the school for a list of double distinctions by year could be a good jumping off point in terms of older theses.
14 hrs · Like · 1

John Hall As long as you start from pure a priori cognition, sure!
14 hrs · Like · 1

John Hall But I meant that the class formerly known as "Lab" is now literally called "Natural Science"
14 hrs · Like

Tim Cantu That's good, because "Lab" sets you up for the very real disappointment of not spending time in Kronk and Yzma's lab making llama potions.
14 hrs · Like · 6

Michael Beitia well, I did once intuit a priori time...
14 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia got better
14 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Joel, I don't know about that suggestion. That would be to assume that those grading the theses have some idea of what they're doing.
14 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Joel HF True, but it would be a list to work off, at least.
14 hrs · Like · 1

Adrw Lng Almost
14 hrs · Like

Pater Edmund THE THREAD: A TRIOLET

Like dog to vomit, thread recursive:
Theology’s slave is metaphysics!
Without its slave its not discursive!

Like dog to vomit: thread recursive.

We need The Physics, need coercive:
Need logic, math, and pagan ethics!

Like dog to vomit, thread recursive:
Theology’s slave is metaphysics!
14 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 5

Adrw Lng at
14 hrs · Like · 4

Michael Beitia 4001 (edited for accuracy)
14 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Tim Cantu stay on target... stay on target! 4,000!
14 hrs · Like · 1

Jonathan Monnereau 1st! Oh wait...
14 hrs · Like · 1

Tim Cantu I think it's a great summation of this entire thread that despite several people's efforts to hit it themselves, #4,000 was "at"
14 hrs · Like · 5

Sean Robertson Nice. So "at" is our glorious 4,000th comment.
14 hrs · Unlike · 5

Adrw Lng I wish I could say that "at" is the worst comment in this magnificent train-wreck
14 hrs · Like · 8

Pater Edmund I also like this quote from Fides et Ratio: "Theology in fact has always needed and still needs philosophy's contribution. As a work of critical reason in the light of faith, theology presupposes and requires in all its research a reason formed and educated to concept and argument. Moreover, theology needs philosophy as a partner in dialogue in order to confirm the intelligibility and universal truth of its claims. It was not by accident that the Fathers of the Church and the Medieval theologians adopted non-Christian philosophies. This historical fact confirms the value of philosophy's autonomy, which remains unimpaired when theology calls upon it; but it shows as well the profound transformations which philosophy itself must undergo. It was because of its noble and indispensable contribution that, from the Patristic period onwards, philosophy was called the ancilla theologiae. The title was not intended to indicate philosophy's servile submission or purely functional role with regard to theology. Rather, it was used in the sense in which Aristotle had spoken of the experimental sciences as “ancillary” to “prima philosophia”. The term can scarcely be used today, given the principle of autonomy to which we have referred, but it has served throughout history to indicate the necessity of the link between the two sciences and the impossibility of their separation."
14 hrs · Like · 4

Pater Edmund Have you noticed that the thread is recursive?
14 hrs · Like · 5

Tim Cantu Really? mine is in plain old printed letters.

I'll see myself out.
14 hrs · Like · 6

Pater Edmund "I'm not yelling at you:" http://youtu.be/AxQ7oqOTXlI?t=3m25s

Loriot "Feierabend" (einfach hier sitzen)
Das vollständige Original.
14 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict http://instantrimshot.com/

Welcome to Instant Rimshot
instantrimshot.com
If you need quick access to an ironicly-placed rimshot sound to mock your friends, or a genuinely-placed rimshot to put your great joke over the top, you've come to the right place.
14 hrs · Like · 3

Adrw Lng How about some celebratory music for 4k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdHK_r9RXTc

Reggie Watts disorients you in the most entertaining way
http://www.ted.com/ Reggie Watts' beats defy boxes. Unplug your logic board and watch as he blends poetry and crosses musical genres in this larger-than-life ...
14 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia but God gave us reason, we used that to make instruments, and measure red shift..... who knows "how long" creation took, but I'm pretty confident in was somewhen in the order of 14 billion years ago
14 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia #Gnosistalking
14 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Sorry, I keep posting unfinished things accidentally and then deleting them.
14 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Blasted shift/return.
14 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia malformed thoughts haven't stopping anyone else
14 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia <--- guilty
14 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Third Secret of Fatima: This thread will end only when Causality has been returned to Nature.
14 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia ^Also guilty^
14 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia you liked my comment? My gnosis must be on the fritz
14 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure And now, I am going to type into this discussion, every word of TS Eliot's The Wasteland, word for word.
14 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure April
14 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure is
14 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure the
14 hrs · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Please no
14 hrs · Like · 2

Sean Robertson cruellest
14 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia month
14 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia bringing
14 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure month
14 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure something about tubers
14 hrs · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Shantih Shantih Shantih
14 hrs · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Whew, now that that's over with...
14 hrs · Like · 2

Pater Edmund I need Aaron Gigliotti's expert advice on the Theses Volume title question: Which of these two titles is better:

1 Learning and Discipleship: Undergraduate Theses from Thomas Aquinas College,
2 Lac Ab Uberibus Almae Matris: Undergraduate Work from a Catholic Liberal Arts College,

or rather, what should the title of this volume be? https://docs.google.com/.../1PutRC7wDJYJ1XughyMKZ.../edit...
14 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Tim Cantu I have no idea what gnosis is. Are they gonna take my degree back?
14 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I like the first better, honestly. But I really hate the word "discipleship" Mr Berquist ruined that for me
14 hrs · Like · 2

John Boyer Is this up to too many comments to just jump in?
14 hrs · Like

Catherine Ryland ^^ No, never.
14 hrs · Unlike · 4

Sean Robertson It's up to too many comments to NOT just jump in.
14 hrs · Like · 5

John Boyer Nice
14 hrs · Like

Catherine Ryland We may be arrogant jerks, but we are inclusive.
14 hrs · Edited · Like · 8

John Boyer I too aspire to be an arrogant jerk and inclusive.
14 hrs · Like · 6

Aaron Gigliotti Pater Edmund "A Well-Read High School Geometry Teacher: Intellectual Pride in the Catholic Ghetto."
14 hrs · Like · 5

John Ruplinger Michael of the second most comments. 4000 is now yours.
13 hrs · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Is deleting old comments to manipulate the thread grounds for thread excommunication?
13 hrs · Like · 2

Aaron Gigliotti https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.
Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.
13 hrs · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland Yes but who is the thread magisterium?
13 hrs · Like

Sean Robertson Good question. But if it's latae sententiae, does it matter?
13 hrs · Like · 1

Sean Robertson I would argue the Thread is its own Magisterium.
13 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I nominate pope Peregrott. Is mine the 4000th now?
13 hrs · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Organically developing in response to the churnings of the heresy factory.
13 hrs · Like · 1

Sean Robertson Either that, or we're all on the Barque of Peterson.
13 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland (Off-topically, is there a particularly good recording of Handel's Messiah on youtube? I already listened to one, but I'm supposed to listen to it for work.)
13 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r68P8TBWiIQ

Handel Messiah, by London Symphony Orchestra & Sir Colin Davis 1966
Handel Messiah, by London Symphony Orchestra & Sir Colin Davis 1966.mp4
13 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer Catherine Ryland, one of the best, imo.
13 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Catherine, how is that off-topic? Who made you the topic cop? 

the thread, as self-actualizing universality, determines the topic, not us.
13 hrs · Unlike · 4

John Boyer From looking at this thread and the disagreements, I think there is a thesis/antithesis/synthesis going on. So the thread is the world spirit.
13 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland The topic magisterium.
13 hrs · Like

Aaron Dunkel BTW, turns out Truth is not a woman. Nietzsche is now being published with gender inclusive language
13 hrs · Unlike · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure The topic is how everyone in the world has lost their sense of Aristotelian causality, and how TAC is working to fix this problem.
13 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia ^nope that's just your ax-grinder
13 hrs · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel "If truth be a person, what then?"
13 hrs · Like · 3

Aaron Dunkel "if truth is an it, then what?"
13 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Please, you have to say it mathematically if you want it to count as rational discourse.
13 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger [Eureka! "excommunication latae sententiae" or "How to exit TNET?]
13 hrs · Like · 2

Aaron Dunkel "if truth is a peregrine, how to proceed?"
13 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia 1 a fool
+
2 bold assertion
=
3 Peregrott
13 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia "he or she is considered profound, because he or she cannot find a bottom to him or her. He or she isn't even shallow"?
13 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Can we all just agree: modern man does not believe in God anymore, so the way to fix this problem is by teaching Catholic college students about Aristotelean causality.
13 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland ^Yes!
13 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia education X vangeliz / duc = evangelization
13 hrs · Like

Aaron Dunkel If truth were a peregrine, you capture it, hood it, put it on a birdstand in your living room for about 3 mos so it becomes docile to your voice and dependent on you for food. And then you could take it hunting, training it to dive bomb on your favorite targets....
13 hrs · Unlike · 7

John Boyer Aristotelian causality is necessary, but more fundamentally, which causality presupposes, is essentialism. Without an understanding of nature, we can make no headway.
13 hrs · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure That's backwards, John. We cannot metaphysically know anything about Nature, without assent to revelation:

DOGMA: 

In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order.

Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and of salvation.
13 hrs · Edited · Like

Michael Beitia there you go responding to something no one asserted again. Can we add "take a drink" every time I accuse you of straw man?
13 hrs · Unlike · 4

Sean Robertson *makes popcorn*
13 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia ^pour a drink for me^ 
I'm at "work"
13 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Even this dogma just by the wording still allows for some religious and moral truths to be known without supernatural revelation, if not easily or with perfect certainty or totally free from error.
13 hrs · Unlike · 4

Catherine Ryland No one said metaphysics was easy.
13 hrs · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure "Aristotelian causality is necessary" sure does not sound like a straw man, especially when the Church teaches infallibly that revelation is necessary to understand metaphysics.

Now, if anyone cares to engage in a rational dialogue...
13 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict http://stream1.gifsoup.com/.../eddie-izzard-popcorn-gif-o...

stream1.gifsoup.com
stream1.gifsoup.com
13 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure smokescreen
13 hrs · Like

Frank Morris the truth will not be hooded, nor hidden in smoke.
13 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Bonaventure is like the students in the Thinkery, studying math in the sand with their face-eyes at the same time as studying the heavens with their nether eyes. Aristophanes was a genius.
13 hrs · Like · 2

John Boyer If knowledge about nature is impossible without revelation, then how do you take Rom 1:19-21?
13 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris His powers of ridicule were feared and acknowledged by influential contemporaries;
13 hrs · Like

Frank Morris their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened
13 hrs · Like

Adrw Lng On a serious note, I initially thought (2k comments ago) that the main confusion by the thread antagonist concerned the distinction between the order of learning and the order of the sciences, but it appears the deeper issue is, ironically, his inability to perceive reality.
13 hrs · Unlike · 5

Frank Morris G is revealed in nature.
13 hrs · Like

Frank Morris can metaphysics shift the perception of reality?
12 hrs · Like

Aaron Dunkel

12 hrs · Like · 2

Aaron Dunkel for your popcorn
12 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Sorry, Catherine, when the Church taught "it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order..."

She really meant:

"Yeah, metaphysics is tough, but thanks to the way Thomas Aquinas College teaches Aristotelean causality, problem solved. Nature redeemed! Salvation is at hand!"
12 hrs · Like

Frank Morris Romulus and Remus were/are more entertaining.
12 hrs · Like

Frank Morris "it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order..." nature is hungry-popcorn don't satisfy.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland The root problem here is that it is commonly held that we can't reason about magisterial pronouncements.
12 hrs · Unlike · 2

Frank Morris the magisterium's pronouncements are to form consciouses.
12 hrs · Like

Aaron Dunkel

12 hrs · Like · 4

Frank Morris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience

Conscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment that assists in distinguishing right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that g…
12 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure God's "eternal power and deity" (Roman 1:19) cannot be clearly perceived through Nature, save by the assistance of grace.

The infallible Church is to be assented to.
12 hrs · Like

Frank Morris the church only infallible when it says it is.
12 hrs · Like

Frank Morris get that hood off me.................................
12 hrs · Edited · Like

Aaron Dunkel Daniel, look what you got me to do now
12 hrs · Like · 4

John Boyer Um, Peregrine, you are conflating two positions. How do you counteract a materialist worldview which categorically excludes God and the supernatural? By REVELATION! No. The claim isn't that TAC teaching Aristotle solves all our problems and gives you understanding of everything. Rather the claim, which needs defense, but defense can definitely be made, is that with a materialist/mechanistic view of the world, you cannot know God at all nor can you be open to revelation. So unless God goes Road to Damascus on everyone, we need to till the fields. And that is done by attacking the reductionist worldview that denies essences exist. Only by doing this can reason be prepared to tackle difficult questions. You seem to be tilting at windmills which aren't even present in this conversation.
12 hrs · Edited · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure Lest we believe, as you seem to be teaching, that Aristotelean causality is an apologetical panacea, and a stepping stone to Revelation, in the order of being and discovery. This is backwards.
12 hrs · Like

John Boyer OT: I asked students if they could disprove the principle of non-contradiction. One student said that Jesus was both man and not-man at the same time. How do you respond? I have my own answer, but would be interested in hearing what y'all have to say.
12 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure God does go "road to Damascus" with everyone. And it seems you're presenting the materialist/mechanistic world view as a straw man. No problem using pagan causality to go after that. Just don't use it to build a Catholic college around.
12 hrs · Like

John Boyer What?????
12 hrs · Like

John Boyer Sigh. Yes, by talking about hylomorphism, we are worshiping Apollo. THE GIG IS UP EVERYONE! Close down the college. We have been unmasked.
12 hrs · Unlike · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure John Boyer, you claim that only by studying pagan causality can you be prepared to tackle difficult question. Sorry, but this is utterly preposterous.

Don Quixote is the autobiography of Thomas Aquinas College.
12 hrs · Like

John Boyer I guess I should not have gone to college but just stayed home and prayed reeeeeeeaaaaaaally hard? I'm not sure why you have such animus toward a view of the world that was adopted by doctors of the church.
12 hrs · Unlike · 2

Aaron Dunkel Seems the magician has convinced you of the Moor's lie....you even embrace the Arabic spelling
12 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Aristotelean causality is a fine rebuttal to materialism and mechanism. Just don't premise Catholic education on it. Catholic education begins and ends with faith.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Max Summe Pagan Causality? Because causality works different once you're baptized....
12 hrs · Like · 4

John Boyer Well, seeing as TAC begins with a year of scripture, I'm not sure what you are asserting.
12 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer Catholic causality: Same effects, now with 100% more JESUS!
12 hrs · Unlike · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure That world view was not adopted by the Doctors. The Doctors always first assented to the principles of Faith, then studied the pagans, not the way you propose.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland We do agree that faith or belief in God is always a gift of God. Always and everywhere!
12 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Reading the Bible is not a comprehensive introduction to the deposit of the Faith and the principles that the Doctors assented to throughout their studies.
12 hrs · Edited · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Thank you Catherine. Let us agree that Faith always comes from God.
12 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger QED many times: Pergrine does not undersand what he asserts.
12 hrs · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland Yes! But that doesn't mean we can't study with our reason at least some of what has been given to us by God.
12 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, Max, causality does work differently once you are baptized, as a matter of fact. Thank you. 
12 hrs · Like

Pater Edmund Remember what Rome made Bautain sign?

“We promise for now and forever: NEVER TO TEACH … 3 that with reason alone one cannot have the science of principles or metaphysics, and the truths depending on it, as a science totally distinct from supernatural theology, which is founded on divine revelation…”
12 hrs · Unlike · 5

Frank Morris i think Peregrine understands what he asserts.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Well, Catherine, the Church teaches you can't understand those things properly, without an assent to revelation, which implies an understanding of sacred theology.
12 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Indeed I do understand what I assert. Thank you and God bless Frank.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Philip D. Knuffke Mr. Bonaventure, you say that TAC is teaching Aristotelian philosophy without revelation, but that is simply not true. They explicitly say that the whole course of studies is conducted under the light of faith. Moreover, you just seemed to arue like this: since you can't know ALL natural truths without using revelation(whatever that means exactly), therefore neither can you know ANY.
12 hrs · Like · 3

JA Escalante Pater you're just reading it out of context and/or it doesn't mean what it clearly means because if it disagrees with PB it simply cannot mean what it means
12 hrs · Unlike · 4

Philip D. Knuffke Dd you really mean that?
12 hrs · Like

Frank Morris i assert with Pater Edmund
12 hrs · Like

JA Escalante Mr Knuffke, vide my entire engagement on this insane thread for the answer to your q
12 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF Isn't it a dogma that we can know some truths via reason? So, if that's true, wouldn't it be material heresy to claim “We cannot metaphysically know anything about Nature without assent to revelation”?
12 hrs · Like · 2

Max Summe can you cite some text for that?
12 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Mr Knuffe Sir: I am just saying what Pater Edmind just cited: "with reason alone one cannot have the science of principles or metaphysics."

So Aristotelean causality is not the secret sauce, or the appetizer, or the first course.
12 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger Pater, rephrasing that in simpler words might help.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure running for lunch.
12 hrs · Like

Pater Edmund Yes, Joel HF, the heresy Bautain was forced to publicly renounce.
12 hrs · Like · 3

Pater Edmund See I can split infinitives too.
12 hrs · Like · 3

Philip D. Knuffke Well it would be a difficult position to maintain. Presumably, he would need to have that statement itself revealed to him too.
12 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland I was already trying to rephrase that, even for myself, but I'm also trying to cook lunch.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris Catholic education begins and ends with faith.
12 hrs · Like

JA Escalante fun with Fideism!
12 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger but can he grasp that?
12 hrs · Like

Pater Edmund Let's have some Alexander Pope:

«See skulking Truth to her old cavern fled,[451]
Mountains of casuistry heap'd o'er her head!
Philosophy, that lean'd on heaven before,
Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more.
Physic of Metaphysic begs defence,
And Metaphysic calls for aid on Sense!
See Mystery to Mathematics fly!
In vain! they gaze, turn giddy, rave, and die.
Religion, blushing, veils her sacred fires,
And unawares Morality expires. 650
Nor public flame, nor private, dares to shine;
Nor human spark is left, nor glimpse divine!
Lo! thy dread empire, Chaos! is restored;
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And universal darkness buries all.»
12 hrs · Like · 2

Frank Morris killing time.
12 hrs · Like

Joel HF Pater Edmund--I believe Vatican I also has something to say about it. I think poor Peregrine doesn't know the magisterium he loves so passionately
12 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger pb could not distinguish syllogism and metaphor.
12 hrs · Like · 2

Pater Edmund Wow, I just saw PB's comment: «I am just saying what Pater Edmind just cited: "with reason alone one cannot have the science of principles or metaphysics."»

That's formal heresy right there.
12 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Frank Morris naaaaah, mere anarchy not yet loosed.
12 hrs · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Edward Langley already pulled out the Vatican I.
12 hrs · Unlike · 2

Pater Edmund

12 hrs · Like · 4

Frank Morris My reason must allow, that I had wooed, not as I should. A creature made of clay. When the angel woos the clay, he'll lose his wings at the end of the day.
12 hrs · Like

Max Summe So - just to be clear - Pater Edmund just pointed out that Peregrine Bonaventure just assented to a formal heresy...

So - who's the super-Catholic now!? 

/troll
12 hrs · Like · 3

Joel HF Yeah, also the comment I quoted. No metaphysical knowledge without assent to revelation. Really? From the guy rabbiting on about how TACer's lacked magisterium?
12 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger NO I SUSPECT HE DIDNT GRASP THE CONDEMNATION. I misread it earlier too.
12 hrs · Like · 2

Max Summe Yes - but he just AFFIRMED THAT POSITION.

I also did not grasp the condemnation at first either. But he affirmed that's exactly what he's arguing for - a condemned position.
12 hrs · Like

Max Summe PB - care to recant?
12 hrs · Like · 2

Max Summe It's unfortunate I can't tag him - he'll never read this far back....
12 hrs · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick So basically we need to address Fideism ...
12 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger he read it opposite its meaning.
12 hrs · Like

Max Summe By the time you go "get lunch" and get back to this thread... it will be at 5000 comments, and who has the time to catch up when velocity increases....
12 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF Which condemnation are you talking about Max Summe? There have been a few that PB didn't quite grasp.
12 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia http://godwillbegod.com/.../07/uroboros-MoM-figure-29.png

godwillbegod.com
godwillbegod.com
12 hrs · Like · 1

Max Summe The one where he explicitly said:

Peregrine Bonaventure Mr Knuffe Sir: I am just saying what Pater Edmind just cited: "with reason alone one cannot have the science of principles or metaphysics."

So Aristotelean causality is not the secret sauce, or the appetizer, or the first course.
12 hrs · Like

Max Summe Joel HF - that was in response to what you just said
12 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Maybe the self-actualizing world spirit has turned into Jormungandr
12 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF Right, I just wondered which condmnation, b/c there were a couple others along the same lines, iirc.
12 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia don't magisterially magisterium your magisterially magistic teachings.
#gnosisrocks
12 hrs · Like · 2

Philip D. Knuffke Why does this guy hate TAC so much?
12 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger it containr 2 negations: too many for pb; he has problems with math and logic inter al.
12 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante just be ready for the decisive "it doesn't say that/you're taking it out of context/you lack the sacred integral sapiential gnosis and thus can't properly read that" argument. I mean, "argument"
12 hrs · Like · 2

John Boyer You said gnosis. that takes me back to junior music with Molly Gustin.
12 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF Philip D. Knuffke--No one really knows. Though getting told TAC "wasn't for him" (or something to that effect) by a senior tutor probably didn't help. Nor did having to leave after several attempts at freshman (and sophomore?) year.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Phillip... go back a few thousand comments. It explains EVERYTHING
12 hrs · Like

Edward Langley It seems to me that Peregrine has just now recovered from explicitly denying a statement taught by Vatican I 2000 comments ago.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia except he doesn't understand it that way.
12 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF Vatican I: "10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds."
12 hrs · Like

Joel HF I cherry-picked the above quote from like, dozens, that would equally support the point. And, Edward Langley, PB didn't recover, he has been more explicit than ever in his rejection of them. (Though, I imagine he thinks he DOES agree with them...or is it vice versa?)
12 hrs · Unlike · 3

Edward Langley .
Edward Langley "Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the 
other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds."
1 hr · Like · 2

[snip]

Edward Langley You haven't answered my question, Peregrine
1 hr · Like

[snip]

Edward Langley Does "right reason establish the foundation of faith" or not?
1 hr · Like · 1

[snip]

Daniel Lendman Edward, I think you are being ignored.
1 hr · Like

JA Escalante Peregrine you crack me up. Do you ever actually respond to an argument, or do you just reassert your cranky position over and over?
1 hr · Unlike · 3

[snip]

JA Escalante Peregrine you crack me up. Do you ever actually respond to an argument, or do you just reassert your cranky position over and over?
1 hr · Like · 2

JA Escalante oh I forgot, you also resort to name-calling
1 hr · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Right reason does NOT establish the foundation of Faith. Assent to revealed supernatural truths DOES establish the foundation of Faith and these truths are the principles of sacred theology.
1 hr · Like

Edward Langley Well, then you're a material heretic: that quotation was from Vatican I.
1 hr · Like · 4

[snip]

Daniel Lendman Edward, that was a gotcha argument, underhanded, and dirty. I really liked it.
1 hr · Unlike · 3

Daniel Lendman Scott, the appropriate response is silence.
1 hr · Like
12 hrs · Edited · Like · 4

Michael Beitia if you can't distinguish between metaphor and syllogism, you'll affirm or deny anything.
12 hrs · Unlike · 2

Joel HF Here it is, Vatican I "1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema."
12 hrs · Unlike · 6

John Boyer "Hence also the possession of [knowledge of the first causes] might justly be regarded as beyond human power; for in many ways human nature is in bondage, sot that according to Simonides 'God alone can have this privilege', and it is unfitting that man should not be content to seek the knowledge that is suited to him." From the Pagan Aristotle, Metaphysics 1.2 982b28-32
12 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley Joel, the way to do it is to quote Vatican I without citation and ask Peregrine if what you've quoted is true. When he denies it, watch him backpedal.
12 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Joel, the trick is now to say that your quote isn't the "fullness of faith" play a little three card mental monte and accuse everyone of heresy
12 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley "Peregrine Bonaventure That's false Edward, and you take Vat I out of context. Right reason is an effect of assent to Faith, which is clearly the foundation of the Faith.
1 hr · Like"
12 hrs · Like · 1

Andrew Benjamin Harrah 4k comments. Well played Matthew
12 hrs · Like

Edward Langley In The Neverending Thread, thread comment on you.
12 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia well played Matthew? He barely cracks the top ten
12 hrs · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel Perhaps the antagonist ought to follow the ancient dietary laws of avoiding ostrich meat.

12 hrs · Like · 2

Erik Bootsma Still got a way to go:

http://recordsetter.com/Facebook-world-records

Facebook World Records
recordsetter.com
Check out some of the coolest and quirkiest Facebook world records and videos. Impress your friends by breaking or inventing your own Facebook world records on Recordsetter.com.
12 hrs · Like · 2

John Haggard Well, let it never be said I didn't do my part.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley I think we should make Peregrine wear a scarlet H
12 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel scarlet is too noble of a color...let us go with bile green
12 hrs · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia how about a scarlet "I" for idiot
12 hrs · Like · 1

Max Summe While making fun of PB is fun... because...

We should also remember that we should probably do our best to help him not be a heretic...
12 hrs · Unlike · 3

Catherine Ryland YOu guys are brats.
12 hrs · Unlike · 5

Edward Langley I think we're at the point where argumentum ad baculum is the only option left.
12 hrs · Like · 4

Michael Beitia how's that possible, Max? Dialogue has to be possible first
12 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland (Who's name-calling now?)
12 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Catherine: me, and yes, I am a brat
12 hrs · Like · 2

Max Summe Michael Beitia I don't know how it would be possible - perhaps argumentation + dialogue is not the answer - at least not in its current form and tone?
12 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia that's just like, you're opinion, man
12 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Maybe you should also burn him, since he's a material heretic, and dialogue is no longer possible. Cuz it's loving to help someone see their error by killing him.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley Public shaming is a form of argumentum ad baculum, and is often helpful in correction.
12 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia well, he called me a thug approximately 4000 comments ago.
12 hrs · Like · 2

Philip D. Knuffke I think TACers should not be allowed to use facebook to dispute...
12 hrs · Like · 7

John Ruplinger short, monosyllabicly worded questions and refusal to respond to his assertions?
12 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia better:?
http://assets.dogtime.com/.../50e.../column_Cat-meme_021.jpg

assets.dogtime.com
assets.dogtime.com
12 hrs · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia cat memes > disputation
12 hrs · Like

Aaron Dunkel What can be done when we point to the moon and our finger gets stared at?
12 hrs · Unlike · 5

John Ruplinger start howling like our "interlocutor", Aaron.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Plus, Catherine, I actually went line by line through Pope Francis's first encyclical with him on facebook with Megan and Mr.Ferrier back when he was just Scott. I tried
11 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger maybe that's it. Say absurd things on simple matters and see if he can correct his thinking by correcting others. IDK
11 hrs · Edited · Like

Joel HF That Ferrier thread is linked somewhere above, hidden by a few thousand comments.
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel something like this, John?

11 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Just to fill in for the "new" contributors, in case y'all haven't yet figured it out Peregrine aka Scott Weinberg, doesn't care about rational discourse. He raises some interesting questions, but cannot get beyond that. 

As a rule, he does not really pay attention to what you say. It would seem that he is not interested. 

He makes blind assertions and insults without basis. 

Feel free to engage, but just know that he is a troll without equal. 

If you do not believe me, you can just look above. His position with regard to TAC has been refuted a dozen times just in this thread.
11 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger cant see it, Aaron.
11 hrs · Edited · Like

Aaron Dunkel its a wolf howling.....it was suppose to be a gif, that's probably why you can't see it
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Most recently he has been talking about how the TAC founders thought that Aristotelian causality is the panacea for our world's ills. 

It apparently does not interest Scott that our founders never said any such thing. 

I quoted all of them at length above about 700 comments ago.
11 hrs · Like · 5

Joel HF John, I can't believe you've hung in this thread when you can't even see Peregrine's posts, and aren't even a TAC grad.
11 hrs · Like · 3

JA Escalante Catherine is right that open meanness is never called for; she's just suggesting that we all act like Christians
11 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia A different one Joel. One specifically about the encyclical
11 hrs · Like

John Boyer 700 comments ago? HA!
11 hrs · Like

Joel HF I remember that one, vaguely. More of the same, iirc.
11 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante but honestly Catherine I think we've all MOSTLY been pretty good sports here
11 hrs · Unlike · 3

Edward Langley And now for a diversion:

Suppose two people play a "guess the number I have in mind game" except, rather than one person trying to guess the number the other is thinking of, he's trying to pick a point on a line that the other person has thought of. What is the probability that the guesser picks the correct point?

On the one hand, if the things to be guessed were line segments, the probability to pick a given segment varies directly with its length. Thus, it would seem that the probability to pick a given point would be 0 (i.e. as the limit of decreasing lengths). That is, it is impossible to pick the given point.

On the other hand, that point was already picked and if it was impossible for it to be picked, it could not have been picked. Thus the probability that it is picked must be > 0.
11 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Actually, Joel, there have been many interesting things on the thread and its more tolerable not to see pb. I am in an intellectual desert.
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure So, if even Aristotle had the humility to know that true metaphysical knowedge is impossible without God's help, don't you think it would be a good idea to teach Catholic college students the principles of Revelation in the infallible deposit of the Faith and of sacred theology?????

Just askin'
11 hrs · Like

JA Escalante Peregrine, how about replying to the proposition Rome made Bautain sign? It was quoted earlier by Edmund, and you're ignoring it
11 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I suppose it depends on what you mean
11 hrs · Like

Philip D. Knuffke Are you serious Mr. Peregrine Bonaventure?
11 hrs · Like · 2

Edward Langley That's his mantra, he repeats it to assure himself of its truth, Philip
11 hrs · Like · 2

Max Summe PB! You're back - you missed the point where we just noticed you explicitly assented to an heretical statement by quoting it.
11 hrs · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Also, as an update, it became clear above that Scott is a material heretic with regard to relation of faith and reason by denying a central point of Vatican I. 
Specifically he denies: "right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things"
11 hrs · Like · 3

Bekah Sims Andrews I think that reading every comment on this thread should count toward credit hours.
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Edward Langley Max, I think his first name is Pope, which is why he is so persistent about this magisterium thing.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick It's hump day, isn't it. . .
11 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia All day long.....
11 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Peregrott, what are the principles of revelation, in your own words?
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Perhaps it is opportune for me to point out that, if the Church actually took Scott's position on things the Nicene Creed could never have been formed.
11 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger peregrine can not be heretic. HE DOESNT understand what he is saying. He is indocile though.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Let me ask the question again:

If Aristotle himself knew that metaphysics was impossible without God's help, and since the *fullness* of God's "help" came after Aristotle, do you not think it is more important to teach the full deposit of that "help" first?

Seeing as that "help" deals with: 1) some things pertaining to God which can be know by reason (albeit with His help) and 2) other things which can be known only in faith, then would it not be wise to teach students all of that deposit, and first, so everyone knows what that help is?

TAC proposes the opposite.
11 hrs · Like

Max Summe PB - you haven't responded to the point that you're assenting to heresy.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman See, this is a good question/objection! The only problem is that it has been answered before. But I think we should try again. 

John, for your benefit, this is what Scott said: "Let me ask the question again:

If Aristotle himself knew that metaphysics was impossible without God's help, and since the *fullness* of God's "help" came after Aristotle, do you not think it is more important to teach the full deposit of that "help" first?

Seeing as that "help" deals with: 1) some things pertaining to God which can be know by reason (albeit with His help) and 2) other things which can be known only in faith, then would it not be wise to teach students all of that deposit, and first, so everyone knows what that help is?

TAC proposes the opposite."
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia again, what do you mean by "full deposit" is it a list?
11 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman That is also a good question!!!
11 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Let me ask again.

Since Aristotle had the humility to know that metaphysics is impossible without God's help, would it not be wise to learn what that help is?
11 hrs · Like

Max Summe Can we talk about the Deposit of Faith in relation to material heresy?

You can't keep trumpeting the Church and deny her teachings!
11 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman <I am the self-appointed cheerleader>
11 hrs · Like · 4

Aaron Dunkel The Pandorica will open, Silence will fall....who knew how prophetic those words were from the multi-form at the beginning of Dr. Who, Season 5
11 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I second Daniel for cheerleader. (pics or it didn't happen)
11 hrs · Like · 5

Max Summe HAHAHAHA ^^
11 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Help = the deposit of the Catholic Faith.
11 hrs · Like

Michael Horton I think the thesis on animal feelings sounds timely and interesting. Just wanted to add that. 
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman I think the problem is that one cannot understand the deposit of the Catholic Faith without sound philosophy. The Church's own definitions are predicated with philosophical terms.
11 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger Its Newman's fault: what happens when so called real apprehentioms are elevated above notional ones. He too seems to have rejected that we can know God "notionally". We wind up solipsic and trapped in our own mind unable to communicate with personal "experience" of God and irrational (toa degree since it is impossible simpliciter) fideism.
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Fine:

11 hrs · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Daniel, I patently disagree with that. Indeed, the opposite is true. You cannot understand philosophy, without God's help. The maxim is faith seeking understanding. You indicate TAC attempts to do the opposite.

Do you agree with this?
11 hrs · Edited · Like

Edward Langley Doesn't "faith seeking understanding" imply that faith is not, of itself, understood?
11 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure And you cannot establish a "sound philosophy" without assent to God's help first, which you cannot do without studying it. Agree?
11 hrs · Like

Edward Langley Kinda like the phrase "man seeking wife" implies that he does not yet have a wife?
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Here is the difficulty. You equate God's help with understanding the deposit of faith. Now, I agree with Vatican I that faith and reason are mutually up-building and aid one another. However, nature proceeds grace. (Because grace is for the sake of make a nature like unto God). So, the help that comes in metaphysics is largely had (at first) through prayer and spiritual exercise.
11 hrs · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel The broad-backed hippopotamus 
Rests on his belly in the mud; 
Although he seems so firm to us 
He is merely flesh and blood. 
Flesh-and-blood is weak and frail, 
Susceptible to nervous shock; 
While the True Church can never fail 
For it is based upon a rock. 

The hippo's feeble steps may err 
In compassing material ends, 
While the True Church need never stir 
To gather in its dividends. 

The 'potamus can never reach 
The mango on the mango-tree; 
But fruits of pomegranate and peach 
Refresh the Church from over sea. 

At mating time the hippo's voice 
Betrays inflexions hoarse and odd, 
But every week we hear rejoice 
The Church, at being one with God. 

The hippopotamus's day 
Is passed in sleep; at night he hunts; 
God works in a mysterious way -- 
The Church can sleep and feed at once. 

I saw the 'potamus take wing 
Ascending from the damp savannas, 
And quiring angels round him sing 
The praise of God, in loud hosannas. 

Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean 
And him shall heavenly arms enfold, 
Among the saints he shall be seen 
Performing on a harp of gold. 

He shall be washed as white as snow, 
By all the martyr'd virgins kist, 
While the True Church remains below 
Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.
11 hrs · Unlike · 3

Daniel Lendman Aaron Dunkel, that is a favorite of mine.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman John, I responded to Scott saying: "Daniel, I patently disagree with that. Indeed, the opposite is true. You cannot understand philosophy, without God's help. The maxim is faith seeking understanding. You indicate TAC attempts to do the opposite.

Do you agree with this?"
11 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman And "And you cannot establish a "sound philosophy" without assent to God's help first, which you cannot do without studying it. Agree?"
11 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia ^Formal heresy?^
11 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger thanks, Daniel. He is partly right. But difficult to correct bc confused and indocile. Very confused.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Daniel that image is obscene!
11 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman That's all I get from you!
11 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I disagree with that Daniel. I equate God's help with revelation; and to have that "help" you need the Church, her teachings, and you need faith, to assent to those truths, and you need to study them, and to do that you need to be presented with them. Thomas's metaphysics is not the same as Aristotles'. 

You, and TAC, seem to be saying the metaphysics and revelation are equal, and equally help each other.

This is false.
11 hrs · Like

Edward Langley Doesn't "faith seeking understanding" imply that faith is not, of itself, understood kinda like the phrase "man seeking wife" implies that he does not yet have a wife?
11 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman Here I am not calling anyone a heretic or troll and you criticize my cheerleading outfit! Catherine! Where's the love? 
11 hrs · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman What does homoousion mean?
11 hrs · Like

Edward Langley Peregrine seems to think that "faith seeking understanding" means "you can't understand anything unless you first have faith."
11 hrs · Like · 2

Edward Langley Thus making all of philosophy into Sacred Theology.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman What does it mean for the soul to be the form of the body as the council of Vienne defined?
11 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure No, Ed, faith seeking understanding simply means gaining a greater understanding of the reasonability of the faith.
11 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman But, faith presupposes reason.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland My poor eyes.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Gaze for a while on the Never Ending Thread as it grows and all will be well.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Never again to be unseen.
11 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Faith presupposes reason.
11 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger YES. WE CAN UNDERSTAND NO ARTICLE of faith without reason.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Edward Langley And, Peregrine, one cannot disagree well unless one actually addresses one's opponents: whether by presenting an argument for your own view, by distinguishing some term your opponent uses or by refuting some claim your opponent makes. Merely reasserting your own position like a broken record is none of these things.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Here is another argument: Faith is a virtue, but the definition of virtue includes the account of a rational nature. Therefore, faith presupposes reason.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Man seeking wife: This thread seems to have turned into a singles classified. Illustrated, sadly.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF Peregrine: Yes or no, do you agree or disagree that “the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason”?
11 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure No, Ed, "faith seeking understanding" does not mean "you can't understanding anything unless you first have faith." It means you would not exist without God, and you cannot understand anything about God in Himself or in his Revelation without faith. And since that is the case, and since the principles of faith have been authoritatively presented to man through the Church, in Her sacred theology, would you not want to study what those principles and teachings are, how they came to be, how they came to improve the metaphysics of the pagan, and how and what they are doing through the ages to this present moment?
11 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman "Turned into?"
11 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger BUT HIS CONFUSION AND OTHERS HERE (i think) is that de fide propositions (and not a special gift of the Holy Spirit) are what preserve us from many errors of reason darkened by sin and ignorance.
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Edward Langley That is a position that has been explicitly condemned.
11 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, that is true, Joel. We cannot know our Lord God without His help. So let us learn what that help is.
11 hrs · Edited · Like

Daniel Lendman Yeah, we want to know what the Church says, but to understand homousion and "soul is form of man" requires sound PHILOSPHY.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia We may have a shot at 8128
11 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman John, this is just in from Scott, 
"No, Ed, "faith seeking understanding" does not mean "you can't understanding anything unless you first have faith." It means you would not exist without God, and you cannot understand anything about God in Himself or in his Revelation without faith. And since that is the case, and since the principles of faith have been authoritatively presented to man through the Church, in Her sacred theology, would you not want to study what those principles and teachings are, how they came to be, how they came to improve the metaphysics of the pagan, and how and what they are doing through the ages to this present moment?"
11 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer Keep it going! Wooooooo!
11 hrs · Like · 3

Max Summe Joel HF - looks like he assents to that statement
11 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF Peregrine--you realize that that proposition was *condemned by anathema* at Vatican I? I quote “If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.” Thus you must REJECT that idea if one wants to remain faithful to the Catholic magisterium!
11 hrs · Unlike · 8

Edward Langley TAC -- 2, Peregrine -- 0
11 hrs · Like · 3

Edward Langley I wonder how many sentences Peregrine would reject if we just quoted VI one sentence at a time.
11 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Joel!!! That was a gotcha argument! It was low-down and dirty... and AMAZING! 
Edward Langley, look at the example you have set.
11 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure ***********Yes, Daniel, understanding the soul as form, requires sound philosophy, but sound philosophy requires sound Revelation, which requires the Church. ******Consider the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in light of Thomas' use of philosophy of the soul. He erred on this dogma ***because of*** his view of the soul. The Church did not err because the Church is aided by God in a unique way.********

So let us study that fully.
11 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Scott, you have to start seeing that your position is really breaking down.
11 hrs · Like · 3

Timothy Moore I think this thread has gotten way past harmful.
11 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Please, Scott, for the good of your own soul and well being, you need to assent to the teaching of the Church.
11 hrs · Unlike · 4

John Ruplinger AGAIN. He is not an heretic. Through modern "education" he has become imbecile.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF It wasn't a gotcha, b/c I'd quoted the Vatican I statement in its entirety earlier today in this very thread. With attribution too. Moreover, I do sincerely hope that PB will come to the truth. (As I know, do you, Daniel.)
11 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 3

Edward Langley Actually, St. Thomas's denial of the IC is consistent with his commitment to speculate as little as possible beyond things revealed by God. Of course the content of the Deposit of Faith was later made more explicit, but that's neither here nor there.
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure How is my position breaking down, Daniel?
11 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia scroll up
11 hrs · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Don't you see how you have explicitly rejected truths defined by the Church?
11 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure No, tell me how my position is breaking down?
11 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Twice.
11 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure No. How?
11 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure OK, where?
11 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Quote it again
11 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante Peregrine can you please just reply to the propositions quoted from Vatican I and the recantation of Bautain? They directly contradict you
11 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia someone has to have it on ctrl+v
11 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF I'll quote Vatican I again: "If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema." You explicitly agreed with the condemned statement.
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Ok. You rejected as false, this statement: The one, true God, our creator and lord, can be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Edward Langley Edward Langley "Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the 
other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds."
1 hr · Like · 2

[snip]

Edward Langley You haven't answered my question, Peregrine
1 hr · Like

[snip]

Edward Langley Does "right reason establish the foundation of faith" or not?
1 hr · Like · 1

[snip]

Daniel Lendman Edward, I think you are being ignored.
1 hr · Like

JA Escalante Peregrine you crack me up. Do you ever actually respond to an argument, or do you just reassert your cranky position over and over?
1 hr · Unlike · 3

[snip]

JA Escalante Peregrine you crack me up. Do you ever actually respond to an argument, or do you just reassert your cranky position over and over?
1 hr · Like · 2

JA Escalante oh I forgot, you also resort to name-calling
1 hr · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Right reason does NOT establish the foundation of Faith. Assent to revealed supernatural truths DOES establish the foundation of Faith and these truths are the principles of sacred theology.
1 hr · Like

Edward Langley Well, then you're a material heretic: that quotation was from Vatican I.
1 hr · Like · 4

[snip]

Daniel Lendman Edward, that was a gotcha argument, underhanded, and dirty. I really liked it.
1 hr · Unlike · 3

Daniel Lendman Scott, the appropriate response is silence.
1 hr · Like
11 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman But, what Joel just said.
11 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Please show me where I erred, and contradicted the teaching of the Church, if this is your claim?
11 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia and Ed
11 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Do you see how that just happened?
11 hrs · Like · 3

Joel HF and Pater Edmund.
11 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante we just showed you, Peregrine
11 hrs · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland That is: He is anathema who says that God cannot be known from creation and human reason.
11 hrs · Like · 5

Daniel Lendman Slow down, guys
11 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Let him respond.
11 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger thanks. Daniel. He needs it broken down.
11 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Even more strongly, Catherine: " by the NATURAL light of human reason."
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 5

Catherine Ryland Thank you! (Not that I care what the magisterium proclaims magisterially.)
11 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Okay, maybe I do a little.
11 hrs · Like · 2

Aaron Dunkel Behold, the sun pierces the fog
11 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF Don't speak so soon, Aaron.
10 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Everyone following should take a moment and pray for Scott. Now.
10 hrs · Like · 5

Peregrine Bonaventure Are you going to let me respond?
10 hrs · Like

Catherine Ryland Brats.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Seriously.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Please do.
10 hrs · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Beyond harmful towards 
healing. This needs to be a healing thread. The soothing eternal return.
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 4

Catherine Ryland I love all of you.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure May I respond?
10 hrs · Like

Joel HF PB, please do respond, by all means!
10 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Please do!
10 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger Does he grasp his statement. Does he grasp that that is what is condemned?
10 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman He is asking for time to respond.
10 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Let's find out. Hush for a second.
10 hrs · Like · 4

Joel HF He's asking us to let him respond, so let's hold off until he does so.
10 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia there's no way this turns out badly
10 hrs · Like · 4

Isak Benedict I have hope. The Peregrine may yet take wing.
10 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia cue jet engine
10 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger TRADITIONALLY, an heretic is given 6 months to recant. PB needs more time perhaps. Go gentle. He is confused.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gur8ccqrQ9c

When You Believe - The Prince Of Egypt
"When You Believe" is the Official Movie Soundtrack of Prince of Egypt. In the film, this song of inspiration is performed by the characters Tzipporah (Miche...
10 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Some people can know God as an uncaused cause by reason alone, but not without some admixture of error. Revelation and assent is needed to know without error. This is the *infallible* teaching from Vat I.

Thank you.

You seem more interesting in proving you are right, then understanding what is true.

But I thank you for letting me respond.
10 hrs · Like

Catherine Ryland It's okay, Peregrine. They do this to EVERYONE. Including me at times. I have been known to throw pencils at people across the table. And burst into tears.
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Aaron Dunkel Wrong...It is extremely difficult to know without an admixture of error and may require much in the way of time....but not impossible
10 hrs · Unlike · 4

Daniel Lendman Fascinating.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland And I was usually wrong of course.
10 hrs · Like

Joel HF When do we do this to you, Catherine Ryland? And moreover it is done entirely out of love!
10 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman So, Scott, I take it from your response that you do not recant?
10 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman John, this was from Scott: "Some people can know God as an uncaused cause by reason alone, but not without some admixture of error. Revelation and assent is needed to know without error. This is the *infallible* teaching from Vat I.

Thank you.

You seem more interesting in proving you are right, then understanding what is true.

But I thank you for letting me respond."
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Do you not see how faith presupposes reason?
10 hrs · Like

John Boyer I think the hang up here is the admixture of error point. That needs to be addressed to move forward otherwise this could continue to go in circles like so many epicycles.
10 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7yKg57tPVU

What happens when a bird hits a jet engine
Ever wonder what would happen if birds were sucked into a jet engine?
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman John Boyer, that is going to happen anyway, we are in The Never Ending Thread.
10 hrs · Like · 3

Catherine Ryland I think the thread is intended to move epicyclically. (You beat me, Daniel.)
10 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman We should also all take a moment and recall all the times we have obstinately held a position even though we recognized, however vaguely, that the other had a better argument and position.
10 hrs · Like · 2

John Boyer Well then this part of the conversation is retrograde motion.
10 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante "Some people" is a distinction you've not admitted before, Peregrine. So basically, what you're saying is: you agree with Vatican I that natural theology is quite possible without revelation, but that there will always be some error admixed; and that, with revelation, metaphysics is purified of that but without losing its relatively independent status?
10 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman It is really hard, sometimes, to change one's mind and to admit error. Especially publically.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Okay, let's talk about what it means to be infallibly infallible.
10 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Yes John Boyer I have seen and recorded now four periods of retrograde motion. These are also known as "Dark Ages"
10 hrs · Like · 4

Daniel Lendman Usually increased participation from Catherine is a herald of a new Renaissance.
10 hrs · Unlike · 5

Daniel Lendman Tim Moore is our "storm crow."
10 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman So, Scott, that is really all the response we're going to get?
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia there can be no dark ages on the NET only varying degrees of dog-returning-to-vomit-edness
10 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman I am very sensitive to those degrees Michael.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Don't judge.
10 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger RESPOND thus: can an atheist follow Aquinas and be convinced without error as Adler?
10 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia I have a strong stomach
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I really thought something great was going to happen.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia enlightenment?
10 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Yeah.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman <sigh>
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia then it wouldn't be neverending.
10 hrs · Like

John Boyer Hegelian synthesis.
10 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer That never ends.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Well, let's take a look at his response:
Some people can know God as an uncaused cause by reason alone, but not without some admixture of error. Revelation and assent is needed to know without error. This is the *infallible* teaching from Vat I.
10 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia see? now we're back to Hegel. Take out Phenomenology of Spirit, add Heidegger
10 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger one can admit that Aristotle had errors. But in principle it is not necessary.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman John Boyer you suggested that we tackle "the admixture of error" part.
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel Perhaps a Hegelian duel is in order
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman What does that mean?
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman What must it mean?
10 hrs · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick Mr. Lendman has now taken the role of Tutor . . . 
10 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland TACers are arrogant jerks.
10 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia Let's go through this line by line
10 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland They really are, even if they're right.
10 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Adrw Lng, join in!
10 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia the internet isn't known for friendliness
10 hrs · Like · 2

Samantha Cohoe You guys must have really boring jobs.
10 hrs · Like · 4

John Boyer Let's look at source of quote first.
10 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman But we are friendly, arrogant jerks.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia if you get a few drinks in us
10 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Good idea John Boyer!
10 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Samantha I am still waiting for classes to start. I am still on vacation!
10 hrs · Like · 2

John Boyer Samantha, being a professor/grad student leaves a fair amount of free time which can be used for productive ends or Facebook. 
10 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Aristotle knew by reason that God exists but with some admixture of error. 

Encyclicals must be read in context, not so much on facebook.

Some encyclicals say Thomas is pre-eminent. This does not mean this is all the theology we study. We must study what the Church teaches in Her fullness, and make assent to this.

This knowledge precedes metaphysics, so why does TAC not teach it?
10 hrs · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Can we take this somewhat seriously please? Even if we can't change PG's mind we may be able to understand his position with more clarity and then how to answer it
10 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland Or just very, very good at avoidance behavior.
10 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Scott, that is a good question, but we are looking at your response from above first.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia PB: your claim that "this knowledge precedes metaphysics" needs clarification. What do you mean by "precedes"?
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Particularly, we are trying to discern what admixture of error means.
10 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer There are two questions there PB. I think it better to address the issue of natural knowledge of god and hash that out before making an assertion and then demanding an answer as to why TAC doesn't live up to it. That's avoiding the question.
10 hrs · Like · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick One thing at a time. . . Ahh nvm this is Facebook 
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman John, Scott just said "Aristotle knew by reason that God exists but with some admixture of error.

Encyclicals must be read in context, not so much on facebook.

Some encyclicals say Thomas is pre-eminent. This does not mean this is all the theology we study. We must study what the Church teaches in Her fullness, and make assent to this.

This knowledge precedes metaphysics, so why does TAC not teach it?"
10 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman So where is that quote from anyway?
10 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer I would say that the phrase in question ultimately comes from Aquinas, no?
10 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley "Das Wahre ist so der bacchantische Taumel, an dem kein Glied nicht trunken ist, und weil jedes, indem es sich absondert, ebenso unmittelbar auflöst,—ist er ebenso die durchsichtige und einfache Ruhe."
10 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure "Some people" as in you guys. Get it?
10 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia see..... here comes Linda
10 hrs · Like

John Boyer ST I, Q. 1, A. 1 Co "I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation."
10 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger THEN PB doesnt deny the statement. AND AN ATHEIST like Adler can follow Aquinas and be without error. (Daniel)
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick What kind if necessary is Thomas using there? Sorry if that's an easy one, but he says necessary even with those things that could have taken a long time to come to know by natural reason and by a few.
10 hrs · Like

John Boyer Side note, I appreciate the sentiment behind the use of the Arabic "N" profile pic, but I get lost as to who is talking sometimes. 
10 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger NECESSARY to avoid error but more importantly for salvation.
10 hrs · Edited · Like

John Boyer Well, the obvious reply, Lauren, although I don't think this is really answering you fully, is that the preambula fidei can be known by reason. However, since many cannot figure them out by reason alone due to difficulty (and time involved that most people don't have), they are revealed in revelation. The same would be said of the 10 commandments, which many argue are precepts of natural law, and thus discoverable by reason. However, there was still a need to give them by divine revelation because not everyone figured out that theft or murder or adultery are wrong.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley I think that quote is from Ott
10 hrs · Like

John Boyer Link plz?
10 hrs · Like

Edward Langley "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order. (De fide.)"

http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm V.9
10 hrs · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick So the necessity is not because man cannot get there on his own, but it is more effective to have it through revelation so more men are saved. (Sorry, for just repeating, but it seems we've had the difficulty of necessity earlier on)
10 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer Thanks, Edward
10 hrs · Like

John Boyer Lauren, that's my meaning, yes.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley If someone has the actual book by Ott, it might be nice to see what he cites for that proposition.
10 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia except knowing the religious and moral truths of the natural order is not the same as being saved
10 hrs · Like

Edward Langley I also find it interesting that that formulation says "morally impossible" rather than "impossible".
10 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer My guess is Aquinas, given the formula.
10 hrs · Like

Pater Edmund Catherine Ryland: Not ALL TACers; Mr. Collins is not a jerk. From the archives:

10 hrs · Like · 1

Pater Edmund More from the same thread:

10 hrs · Like

Pater Edmund And:

10 hrs · Like

Pater Edmund https://www.facebook.com/emily.norppa/posts/512239741478

Emily Norppa
A few years ago, Dr. Kelly wrote an article for the TAC newsletter about why we study math. Does anyone happen to have a copy of that which they could send me? Let me know and I'll private message my email address to you.

Also, other articles about why we study math that aren't simply STEM-related would be great.

Andrew Seeley Sean Collins Richard Delahide Ferrier Edward Wassell Gregory Froelich Brian Dragoo Nick Ruedig Tom Sundaram
10 hrs · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Ok. So man can know some, but not all the truths of the faith through reason. But not all men can through reason, hence the way revelation is considered necessary. (Sorry!) If so then are disagreement with PG would be the some vs all vs any men.
10 hrs · Like

Edward Langley John Boyer, that wouldn't explain why it's listed under "Dogmas of the Catholic Church"
10 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer True
10 hrs · Like

John Boyer But as the original source of the formula...unless Aquinas is going back to something prior. The similarity of wording is striking to my eye at least.
10 hrs · Unlike · 1

Sam Rocha This just occurred me, but do TAC'ers read Frege? Catch my drift?
10 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Um, sorry, I don't mean interrupt your victory lap, your spiking of the football. BUT, Holy Church teaches revelation is needed to know the Lord without error.

So why not study that?
10 hrs · Like

Edward Langley Peregrine, I think what the Church teaches is that most people need to have the both the preambles and the articles of faith revealed to them in order to prevent errors.
10 hrs · Like · 2

Edward Langley But, at least in principle, it is possible for someone to come to know all the preambles without revelation.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick So to know ALL the truths yes, but for some men they can know some of the truths through reason..., right?
10 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia I think the disagreement is rather "some men can know the truths of the moral and natural order" vs. "entire deposit of the faith" - the latter, no one has claimed.
10 hrs · Like · 3

John Boyer ^THIS
10 hrs · Like · 2

Sam Rocha Is there an implication here, somewhere, that Catholics must know how to read? I sure hope not.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia nor would anyone
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia rather I think the context of Vatican I would be helpful. What, historically, caused the anathema?
10 hrs · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick I'm not sure that it would follow that you have to know how to read inorder to reason to truths.
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

John Boyer People saying things that were wrong.
10 hrs · Like · 2

John Boyer Lauren, I've heard it helps.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure I never know if you are serious? Is there a way to tell?
10 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia I mean Nicaea is a response to Arianism, right?
10 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 3

Edward Langley All those Roman Nazis.
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia what is VI a response to?
10 hrs · Like

Edward Langley I think to rationalism and fideism
10 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger mb, it was Newman  (See above and below this comment. But seriously as y'all know i think he thunk the same.) . . . . It is a consequence of empirical nominalism: viz. fideism and immanentism.
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Edward Langley (i.e. the followers of Descartes and those of Pascal)
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia bwahahahahahahahaha
10 hrs · Like

Edward Langley Taking Descartes and Pascal as metaphors
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Trent anathematized Jansenism, right?
10 hrs · Like

Edward Langley No, Trent was 16th century, Jansenism was 17th
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia So is PB's position fideistic? or some new thing?
10 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent
10 hrs · Like

Edward Langley And Jansenism has primarily to do with the role of grace in salvation.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley I think PB's position comes to fideism, although he doesn't admit that.
10 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I was thinking Pascal....
10 hrs · Like · 2

Edward Langley Pascal was 17th century
10 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia And I was thinking the canons on justification.
10 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I admit it does not come to fideism. I have a great example... (In meeting)
10 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley This is interesting: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Vatican Council
www.newadvent.org
The twentieth and up to 1912, the last ecumenical council, opened on 8 December, 1869, and adjourned on 20 October, 1870
10 hrs · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Michael Beitia Pascal in relation to Jansenism, canons on justification from Trent. Sorry at "work" still, getting distracted by life. Excuse incomplete thoughts
10 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger BUT PB doesnt deny it . . . only without errors. He insists on studying sacred science to correct the errors.
10 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley Although, VI seemed more concerned with rationalism than with fideism
10 hrs · Like

Edward Langley (rationalism is also more of a danger at TAC, as far as I can tell)
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 4

John Boyer Based on Pascal's Penses, it seemed like it was just about the Pope being wrong and talking about Athanasius... 
10 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

John Ruplinger He doesnt grasp that Aquinas has done this already and is smarter than pb in his ability to do so.
9 hrs · Like

John Boyer Bowing out to go to work. I'll wade through all this later.
9 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger AND THAT IT is necessary to develop reason before approaching sacred science: Jesuits: 3 years of latin and greek before 3 years of lit/rhetoric before logic before philosophy before ANY THEOLOGY . . . well i should say metaphysics is followed by sacred Scripture.
9 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick So wait! That's just another distinction we've added/clarified. Necessary for salvation vs necessary for studying Sacred Theology  (sorry this just became clear to me as one of the issues we were having...)
9 hrs · Like · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick (Maybe because half this conversation takes place at unreasonable hours)
9 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger PB is that which happens when theology precedes the other arts \ sciences: a concrete refutation of his position.
9 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure **necessary** for metaphysical knowledge without some error.

Have good example. 

Plz stnd by.

In mtg.

Rock on.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick Ok. So metaphysical (no clue what we mean by that). But we can have some truths through reason without any error, just it is limited and rare (not all men or all truths)
9 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger WE ACTUALLY can follow aquinas (if wise enough) without error, withoup faith. On our own no chance, these days. PB might grant this.
9 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger metaphysics is the study of being as being and of the first cause (God), Lauren.
9 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman So, I think an example of the kind of admixture of error there would be is something like this: Aristotle knew that God was personal, probably thought God was only one person, however. Thus, there would be an admixture of error.
9 hrs · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson Aristotle knew God was personal?!?
9 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman I don't see why not.
9 hrs · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Evidence of any kind?
9 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger and didn't see his esse = essentia. But, yes. Not sure he had the concept of personal (since his understanding of the eternity of soul wasnt personal)
9 hrs · Like

Edward Langley Knew he had intellect (+ therefore will)?
9 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Edward Langley A person is "an individual substance of a rational nature". Rational nature is defined by possession of intellect. Aristotle knew God had intellect. .: Aristotle knew God was personal.
9 hrs · Like · 2

Edward Langley (even if he didn't state as much explicitly)
9 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe Isn't that Thomas's definition, Edward Langley, not Aristotle's?
9 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger Curiously my sixth sense perceives some doubt of the proposition PB doesnt really deny (I think) among TACers.
9 hrs · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Boethius was loooong after Aristotle, and Aristotle does not speak of persons, does he? And St. Thomas further develops that definition until even the old Catholic Encyclopedia says it is almost entirely different from Boethius's. In fact, of course, "person" is developed via complicated Christian theology.

Aristotle so far as I know, when speaking about what we take to be him speaking about God, never indicates that God has a will or refers to God in any personal way.
9 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman I was just trying to think of an example, but this is interesting, now.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman One would best look to his ethics to see his notion of a personal God.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Tim Cantu I was such a bad TAC student, when you guys start doing this all I can think is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU

Revenge of the Nerds - NERDS!
Clip from Revenge of the Nerds where Ogre and the other football players scream "NERDS!"
9 hrs · Like · 4

Matthew J. Peterson In fact, from what admittedly little we have of Aristotle, he seems to speak of God in remarkably careful and one might say sparse ways.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Tim Cantu Or this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8
9 hrs · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Where in his Ethics?!
9 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe Keep looking, Daniel, cause it's not there.
9 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Well, based on lecture notes, he said a lot of sparse things.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Keep denying Samantha Cohoe
9 hrs · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Tim Cantu: But to me this is also the fun stuff we talk about when we get hammered and party too...dammit.
9 hrs · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson Right, so give us ANY evidence of a personal God in Aristotle, anywhere.
9 hrs · Like

Joel HF Samantha--Don't you know that Aristotle was the only man ever to be reincarnated? He came back as Thomas Aquinas.
9 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Samantha Cohoe Do you really need these wild anachronisms to prove your point, guys?
9 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Wanted to bounce these examples off you guys. There are two examples. Let me know what you think.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Like I said, it was just the first example that popped into my head.
9 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman It is fun though.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF I vaguely recall stuff at the end of the metaphysics that could be understood to imply a personal God. I don't think that Aristotle had developed that idea though. And I'm too lazy to look it up.
9 hrs · Like · 3

Pater Edmund Obviously Aristotle never calls God a person, but he calls Him a living being: « If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God's self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God. » Sounds kind of "personal" in Daniel Lendman's sense.
9 hrs · Like · 6

Tim Cantu Hammered at a party is the only time I feel the self-confidence to participate in these discussions, other than shouting nerds.
9 hrs · Like · 3

Daniel Lendman He's back, though, so I will put it aside for now.
9 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe Haha, Joel, that's gold. I'm going to remember that.
9 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Aristotle's prime mover was an individual intellectual being and to that extant personal (though the Latin term wasnt used)
9 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Thank you Pater Edmund, that was the quote I was going to look up.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe So, by personal, you just mean "living?"
9 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF Pater Edmund--That's what I was thinking of. But I don't think Aristotle had developed that anywhere close to STA's idea of "person."
9 hrs · Like

Megan Baird Most of the time I only participate in this thread when I've had a nice glass of single malt scotch or rye whiskey.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman But He was living, knowing, and willing. What more do we need?
9 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I am not denying that the notion of person is a real development.
9 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF Well, the first two anyway. (Per Aristotle)
9 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe Do we have willing?
9 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe Joel beat me.
9 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe This thread moves crazy fast
8 hrs · Like

Joel HF It also has sudden jumps between topics.
8 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF Samantha--would you disagree that "The Doll House", "Billy Bud" and Flaubert could easily be dumped from Senior Seminar?
8 hrs · Like · 1

Tim Cantu So, how bout them Bears?
8 hrs · Like · 4

Megan Caughron Reading back up the thread and thinking big pictures and gravely risking initiating a discussion I totally do not want....... Isn't saying that "What the Church says is true is true because the Church says it's true" madly circular? And kind of an insult to God?
8 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe Actually, I forgot we read those ones. I think Doll House is important, but the others, meh
8 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure When I'm not on vacation, or on facebook, I liaise with States and Tribes in the Heartland. The Santee Sioux of Niobrara know God exists by looking at nature. They call God the Great Spirit. He created the stars and the moon and the fish and everything that came forth from the mouth of the Fish. They know God with admixture of error. Now, most of the Tribe became Catholic about 100 years ago. They still believe in the Great Spirit, but they call Him God the Father now, and since they have been taught the Faith, they know Him without admixture of error. They even say they always knew God existed. It's just that now they know God exists without error. So, this shows that you can know God by reason and nature, but you need revelation to know God without error.
8 hrs · Like · 2

Samantha Cohoe I can't remember Billy Bud at all. Did we skip that seminar?
8 hrs · Like

Megan Baird Billy Budd was a snoozefest. Imminently forgettable.
8 hrs · Like · 2

Daniel Lendman Does the first mover move for a reason? If if does, then that is a final cause, and that is good, and that is the proper object of the will. Therefore etc.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwCiQASnw6o

Dallas Is Going Down
Marc Miller, an enthusiastic Buffalo Bills Fan, predicts the outcome of Super Bowl XXVII, then just starts yelling. (Final Score: Dallas 52, Buffalo 17) Clip...
8 hrs · Like · 4

Joel HF Not I! As Henry Zepeda can attest. "Jimmy legs" was my main take away. That and heavy handed tripe about the state of nature.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson Yah - there is no talk of God's will in 'stotle. I'm not at all sure what we would mean by speaking of a *personal* God in terms of what we know of his thought.
8 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Joel HF The Flaubert seminar is what I don't remember.
8 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe Daniel-- that argument is just the worst.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Funny, brilliant men have made that argument. More fully developed of course, but that is what it is in essence.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe Flaubert was at DeCaen's house. I think we talked about how weird and disturbing the stories were, and how Madame Bovary was better.
8 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Are you really willing to say that the First Mover moves without any purpose or order in mind?
8 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe Brilliant men have not made that argument to say that Aristotle must have made those extrapolations and inferred a concept that didn't really even exist yet.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF Oh right. All I remember is the artwork at his house. I've also never read Madame Bovary for some reason.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman Samantha, as I said above, "I am not denying that the notion of person is a real development."
8 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe eeeeehhhhhh....... make that "hadn't even been explicated yet."
8 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Nevertheless, Aristotle new that God to be Living, knowing, and willing.
8 hrs · Like · 2

Samantha Cohoe No. Booo.
8 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe And you don't really expect me to recall (or have read) anything from "above," do you?
8 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Lendman I realize that this is a point of contention among many philosophers, but I also know when I make a good argument, and I did make a good argument. You may not like how it concludes, you may even have reasons aside from your derisive reactions, but I have been studying philosophy and theology at two different graduate institutions and think that I merit the respect of anyone, but especially of one whom, at least up to now, I considered a friend.
8 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF My favorite part about Aristotle having a concept of the will is how explicitly he takes up the notion in the Nicomachean Ethics.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Here is a second example, and let me know your thoughts. 

St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, because of his adherence to Aristotle's moral and metaphysical teaching on the human soul. He said that that Mary was freed from sin after conception because ensoulment takes place after fertilization. So he had metaphysical knowledge but with error. 

A further unfolding of revelation by the Church was needed to correct the error. Dogma corrected metaphysics. A body-soul unity comes into existence at conception. New science supports this claim. Under a microscope, identical twins are generated by a second soul in a cluster cells, not by a division of cells.

Revelation is conveyed by the Church in Her Scripture and dogma, which informs sacred theology, and this is necessary to remove error from reason and metaphysics. (This is different than reading Aristotle and praying and going to Mass.)
8 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I see another discussion is taking place. Please look at my examples when you can, and let me know what you think.
8 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe Woah, I have to go make dinner, but before I ruin our friendship, Daniel, I was not objecting to the outline of your argument, just your argument as attributed to Aristotle. He doesn't say that stuff, and there isn't any reason to think he would have thought it.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF What Samantha said. But I hope you know not to take anything I say seriously, Daniel?
8 hrs · Like

Joel HF "Under a microscope, identical twins are generated by a second soul in a cluster cells, not by a division of cells." Uhhh...scratches head...
8 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe Yeah, I thought my font looked very light-hearted and bantery, but I see I caused offense.
8 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson Yah, one more time: it's tangential in the sense that it was brought up as an example, but A) it is very unclear what anyone would mean when they say Aristotle talks about a personal God, and B) Aristotle does not speak of God having a will, or providence, in any serious fashion in the admittedly little we have of his thought.
8 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe That's very interesting that you can see a soul under a microscope. Who knew.
8 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Samantha we believe what the Church teaches because God granted her authority confirmed by miracles and the testimony of saints (by their words, deeds, and blood): this by the gift of Faith strengthened by acts of Faith, also a gift.
8 hrs · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick I thought it was his understanding of "conception" that was the problem. Also Thomas was avoiding the prevalent error of those who claimed Mary was cleansed before conception (which doesn't work because before conception there is no person).
8 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF I've heard that there is some disagreement amongst Thomists as to what exactly Thomas taught w/r/t the IC.
8 hrs · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson We need to get some Scotists and Thomists in here to squabble at this point. Summon them! 

FIGHT!
8 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger not circular.
8 hrs · Like

Max Summe This thread hasn't had a soundtrack in a good long while Matthew J. Peterson.... what gives?
8 hrs · Like

Joel HF "Yah, one more time: Aristotle don'" He don' what, Mr. Peterson? Edit: it is clear now.
8 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Sam Rocha In honour of the feast day: https://soundcloud.com/wiseblood.../07-eulogy-for-monica

7. Eulogy For Monica
On August 28, 2014, Wiseblood Records will release its inaugural collection of music: Late to Love, by Sam Rocha. "Eulogy for Monica" is the seventh track of that album. Pre-order your copy tod
8 hrs · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick It's not like we can go on Facebook and look up all his past conversations. 
8 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Meagan, "what the Church says is true" is theological data about revelation, used in sacred theology, to correct errors in metaphysics, and to further support the reasonability of belief.

This is a lot different than saying knowing God by reason is the beginning of Wisdom. 

You can't really know God without error by reason. I know Langley disputes that, but I think that's the truth. 

Consider the Native American. They knew God by reason and nature and myth. They knew God without revelation, but with admixture of error.

Even St. Thomas knew metaphysics by reason but admixture of error. Consider his false teaching on the Immaculate Conception was derived from Aristotle's false metaphysical notion of ensoulment.
8 hrs · Like

Brian Gerrity I'm anticipating this thread soon topping 1,000 comments per day.
8 hrs · Like · 3

JA Escalante ensoulment isn't a metaphysical concept; it is a physical concept
8 hrs · Like · 3

Samantha Cohoe John-- sorry, were you directing your comment at some remark of mine?
8 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe Is that a yes or a no?
8 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure And BTW, as informed Catholics, how can you claim that your understanding of Dogma didn't inform your reasoning to God? That being the case, why don't you study all of it? 

You don't think Aristotle's metapjysics was without error, do you?
8 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe But seriously, Daniel, I love you! Come back!
8 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger Aristotle predicated the essential attributes of person to God but not the name or others, viz. one, thinking, and living.
8 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia JA Escalante I just got home and come to find, as usual, you beat me to it. It is a biological concept, considering the notion of "ensoulment" is in some way the "form" of the living thing.
8 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante Peregrine it's really hard to take you seriously when you can't tell what falls under physics and what falls under metaphysics
8 hrs · Like · 4

John Ruplinger yes, Samantha.
8 hrs · Like

Daniel Lendman Matthew J. Peterson, I agree with you about your two points " A) it is very unclear what anyone would mean when they say Aristotle talks about a personal God, and B) Aristotle does not speak of God having a will, or providence, in any serious fashion in the admittedly little we have of his thought."
Though I would not say "very unclear," but "difficult to see," perhaps. 

I don't think that my argument concludes such that one must agree with me. It is an historical question, "Did Aristotle think X" and consequently is open to a very limited degree of certitude.

I am content to leave it at that.
8 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe THese guys are all being jerks. Why don't I get to be a jerk? No fair.
8 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia be a jerk then
8 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe Apparently if I'm a jerk I lose friends. I call double standard.
8 hrs · Like · 2

Matthew J. Peterson And Daniel Lendman's actual point was entirely valid, in my opinion, and I think everyone else's: he was just picked on a little by jerks for choosing a suspect example.
8 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Furthermore, PB's first example is support for what the other side is saying, that is, the tribe that comes to know God truly, already had a notion of God. Can anyone imagine a tribe not having a (if mixed with error and not fully formed) notion of God?
8 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Furthermore, PB's first example is support for what the other side is saying, that is, the tribe that comes to know God truly, already had a notion of God. Can anyone imagine a tribe not having a (if mixed with error and not fully formed) notion of God?
8 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Furthermore, PB's first example is support for what the other side is saying, that is, the tribe that comes to know God truly, already had a notion of God. Can anyone imagine a tribe not having a (if mixed with error and not fully formed) notion of God?
8 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer Also, if memory serves, God in Aristotle is in the category of substance....if memory serves. And doesn't God move by final causality alone in Metaphysics 12?
8 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Samantha, you can be my friend (in part because I'm probably WAY bigger of a jerk)
8 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia oooh it's dinner time.
Taco Tuesday - on a Wednesday!!!!!
8 hrs · Like · 2

Samantha Cohoe I don't want to be YOUR friend, I want to be Daniel Lendman's friend. Sending you a friend request, though. (who are you?)
8 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante yeah Beitia who are you
8 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLIerfXuZ4

The Who - Who Are You?
Music video by The Who performing Who Are You?. (C) 1998 Polydor Ltd. (UK)
8 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe This is way more fun than making dinner.
8 hrs · Like · 3

Joel HF Or working.
8 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF In 1988, however, the Committee report stated that any illegal zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
8 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF Re the Immaculate Conception--I have no opinion here, nor am I saying that Garrigou-Lagrange is necessarily correct--but this link has some interesting texts from Thomas that suggest that Thomas at the end of his life held that Mary was immaculately conceived: http://taylormarshall.com/.../did-thomas-aquinas-deny...

Did Thomas Aquinas Deny the Immaculate Conception? (Garrigou-Lagrange)
taylormarshall.com
We got fired up the other day in our discussion of Blessed John Duns Scotus and the Immaculate Conception.It seems that I may have been to quick to speak by pas
8 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante It's pretty clear I think Thomas always affirmed the basic idea of the doctrine, while denying the "how" account due to his physics
8 hrs · Like · 2

Samantha Cohoe I haven't been paying attention, does Peregrin just hate philosophy and St. Thomas? Is that a fair summary?
8 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante Peregrine seems to hate TAC, and thinks that philosophy is just a penumbra of revealed theology, pertaining to created things
8 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Katherine Gardner One does not simply "summarize" The Thread, Sam. 
8 hrs · Like · 5

Joel HF He always affirmed that she was free from original sin at birth, but the Summa fairly explicitly denies the conception bit. Of course, other texts fairly plainly affirm it. Again, I'm no expert, and if Thomas did hold that she wasn't, I wouldn't be bothered.
8 hrs · Edited · Like

JA Escalante but she wasnt asking about the Thread, just about PB
8 hrs · Like · 3

Samantha Cohoe So, good thing we study theology, too, then, yes?
8 hrs · Like

Joel HF Particularly TAC, b/c way too much math, too much philosophy and it doesn't start w/ "Here are the doctrines of the church. They, and only they, are the data of theology." Plus I hear TAC lets Protestants in. Ewwwwwww!
8 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF That last bit may not * actually * be an accurate representation of his position. (Though I get the feeling it isn't far from that). In any event, TAC doesn't do enough to instruct its students on what the Church teaches and what they must assent to.
7 hrs · Like · 2

Frank Morris "∴" all they have written seems as straw.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris JA Escalante i like the way you capitalized the Thread. 
7 hrs · Like

Frank Morris Katherine G, were you the first to capitalize?
7 hrs · Like

Frank Morris final causality
7 hrs · Like

JA Escalante its been capitalized for some time, and has its own FB page
7 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris An event's final cause is the aim or purpose being served by it.
7 hrs · Like

Frank Morris final causality of The Thread....
7 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Who am I? I am who .... just finished eating tacos. TAC 00
7 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict The Thread has also taken the first faltering steps toward the horizon of self-consciousness, almost like a new Adam. A digital Adam waking up to himself on the morning of a new era of the world.
7 hrs · Like · 6

Isak Benedict By the way I am very disappointed to come back and find that nothing was settled after we quieted down enough for the Peregrine to speak his response a few hours ago.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia The Thread is hive-mind self actualization. The Bootstrapping of world spirit. Jormungandr
7 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF Insert the monkey scene from 2001 Space Odyssey.
7 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante The Neverending Thread
7 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe How about we take this in a different direction, say, which TAC class is best? TAC06>>> TAC00, for instance
7 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia pansies. you couldn't handle the ostrich
7 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante you can't "take" the Thread anywhere
7 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia the Thread takes you?
7 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure I don't hate TAC, JA, I just think it is flawed because they tolerate an admixture of error when studying philosophy by denying, from its students, dogma and sacred theology from its curriculum. I think it is not being honest: It leads students to believe that they are receiving a truly Catholic liberal education, when they are not.
7 hrs · Like

Frank Morris Mathew Petterson knows to much.
7 hrs · Like

Matthew J. Peterson We don't appropriate the thread. The thread appropriates us.
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Michael Beitia you see how Peregrott just started this all over again.
7 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger Do TACers cringe at mention of emphatic statements of what the Church teaches? Could this be what PB takes offense at? Are they overly questioning of doctrine for PB?
7 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris golden thread.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia the golden gnostic thread
7 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe hmmm, that might be true. I got here an hour ago feeling very superior to everyone who had spent their afternoon arguing with PB... now look at me..
7 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante John, PB wants a body of doctrine (compendized where and in what, exactly?) to serve as the core of the program, with a plain systematic relation to every subject and text in the curriculum.
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 4

Michael Beitia hang on, Samantha, you're right 6 tacos are better than none
7 hrs · Like

Frank Morris ostrich tacos.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia with no math, JAson
7 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Frank, I've been there. it is a dark place
7 hrs · Like · 2

Frank Morris let us be facebook friends mb.
7 hrs · Like

JA Escalante oh Frank you might not know what you're asking there
7 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia too late HAHAHAHAHA
7 hrs · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson The Heaviest Burden. What if a demon crept after you into your loneliest loneliness some day or night, and said to you: "This Neverending Thread, as you live it at present, and have lived it, you must live it once more, and also innumerable times; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh, and all the unspeakably small and great in this Thread must come to you again, and all in the same series and sequence - and similarly this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and similarly this moment, and I myself. The eternal sand-glass of the Thread will ever be turned once more, and you with it, you speck of dust!" - Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth, and curse the demon that so spoke? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment in which you would answer him: "You are a God, and never did I hear anything so divine!" If that thought acquired power over you as you are, it would transform you, and perhaps crush you; the question with regard to all and everything: "Do you want this once more, and also for innumerable times?" would lie as the heaviest burden upon your activity! Or, how would you have to become favourably inclined to yourself and to The Neverending Thread, so as to long for nothing more ardently than for this last eternal sanctioning and sealing?
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 5

JA Escalante Beitia is an elemental spirit, and you have let him into your virtual dwelling
7 hrs · Like · 3

Frank Morris JA, you and me are facebook friends...
7 hrs · Like

JA Escalante I'm vastly nicer than Beitia
7 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict The Thread has really been the Axis Mundi all along in disguise. It runs through all, and all turns about it.
7 hrs · Like · 3

Frank Morris choke the demon with the thread.
7 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante Isak you are rapidly becoming one of my fav FB people
7 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante 5000 is in sight...thalassa! thalassa!
7 hrs · Like · 3

Samantha Cohoe Michael-- I see what you did there. Isak should write science fiction poetry.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris axis mundi............
7 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Any minute now the old gods of all the myths will take hold of The Thread at any point, and rotate it divinely about in a circle, thereby creating a Cosmic Conic Section. All things will emanate from that center point in slowly widening concentric circles when seen at a certain point in time, or event. And Zeus shall dangle Hera in chains from one end of The Golden Thread, and we all shall weep for our children.
7 hrs · Like · 6

Frank Morris metaphysics of the axis mundi and the divine milieu
7 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict I'm glad you're enjoying my growing madness JA haha
7 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris naaaaaaaah the old gods of myth, war-lust and fertility, chance....have never released their hold
7 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure JA pushed this conversation along with a false suggestion. And may it continue until we find the truth about Faith and Reason. I think Aristotle and St. Thomas would want it that way.
7 hrs · Like

Frank Morris faith is the bridge between reason and the Divine.
7 hrs · Like

JA Escalante what is the false suggestion, Peregrine?
7 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Is PB the homunculus?
7 hrs · Like

Frank Morris pb ain't his name.
7 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia okay, SW
7 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia oof.... JAson, you're in the bay area, right?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W959czbBJAA

Here We Go Again - OPERATION IVY
Lyrics- It's not the ending Its the beginning The ground is moist and it rained last night Smells like smoke and it smells so clean The sun is shining down l...
7 hrs · Like

JA Escalante I'm waiting for Peregrine to tell me what my "false suggestion" was.
7 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger i finally figured out Matthew's joke. TNET must form a circle (or extended a cylinder) and we are all hamsters making it return to the beginning. And we are chasing a hopeless cause, pb. I feel really stupid now.
7 hrs · Like · 3

Frank Morris the final causality isn't hopeless.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe I don't really have a dog in this fight, but it does sound like Peregrin's proposed curriculum would be BORING
7 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF What do you mean you don't have a dog in this fight? This is a TAC thing, not a Catholic thing.
7 hrs · Like · 3

JA Escalante still waiting
7 hrs · Like · 2

Frank Morris code duelo, JA?
7 hrs · Like

JA Escalante ....still waiting
7 hrs · Like · 3

Joel HF Though honestly, as has been said, PB's initial questions are interesting. And it is a rare TACer indeed who does not have a laundry list of complaints about the place.
7 hrs · Like · 3

JA Escalante of course! the problem is that PB simply will not admit when his claims have been refuted, and he then repeats the charges ad nauseam
7 hrs · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson John Ruplinger: Hopeless? Joke?

Maybe, if the return is eternal, it is no longer a return.

Maybe the joke is real, and the real is the joke.

Maybe there is no longer any need for hope, nor for chasing, when you become part of The Neverending Thread.

Don't feel stupid. 

Be. 

Be wise.

Let the common good of the Thread heal you as part to whole.
7 hrs · Like · 3

Samantha Cohoe OK, but if the complaint is that TAC isn't Catholic enough, then that's weird, but I'm not sure I care.
7 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante Well Samantha it's not simply a complaint, it's an actual claim about the principles and ratio studiorum of the college
7 hrs · Like · 4

JA Escalante a claim which happens to be false
7 hrs · Like · 3

Matthew J. Peterson And yet - and yet. The longer one refuses to let go and embrace The Neverending Thread, the more one contributes to its being and growth.
7 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure My claims have not been refuted. You and others stated Vat I claims you can know God by reason alone. In fact, you can, but not without admixture of error; as the Native Americans, and even Thomas and Aristotle, can know God by reason alone but not without error. You need an outlay of revelation in dogma and theology to perfect reason.

This begs the question: why does TAC not teach this way, yet claims it presents a truly Catholic liberal education.

IS THIS REASONABLE?
7 hrs · Like

JA Escalante though some of the things he's saying do point to problems within the program, as almost all of us readily admit
7 hrs · Like

Megan Baird I have a question - and call me dim-witted - but who is the Final Arbiter of what is truly a "Catholic liberal education"?
7 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict MAGISTERIUM
7 hrs · Like · 4

John Ruplinger i am 
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

John Haggard Man, we're going to break 5,000!
7 hrs · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson In a MAGISTERIUM...One MAGISTER...

Coming Soon To A Thread Near You
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Max Summe The main problem with the curriculum is that it's not all other curriculums simultaneously. That really sucks about it...
7 hrs · Like · 1

Max Summe You know - maybe we should just only read things written by saints. That'd fix everything.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Even St. Thomas could not know God and metaphysics by reason alone, without some error.

You how come you guys say you can?

How come you hate dogma?
7 hrs · Like

Matthew J. Peterson Next year people will be giving up The Neverending Thread for Lent.
7 hrs · Like · 4

JA Escalante Peregrine, that's a backpedaling save from your earlier unqualified assertions.

The question isn't admixture of error (which might be quite small, actually), the question is whether metaphysics is relatively independent and mostly gets it right about God in the formalities it is able to consider Him under. And it is, and does. Where revelation secures metaphysics is in the very highest principial level (creator/creature distinction, preeminently; but also things we would never know by reason, but don't necessarily deny otherwise, like the Trinity), but revelation needs- your Church's words, not just mine- metaphysics to elaborate itself as a human science. And the metaphysics it thus uses is relatively self-standing.
7 hrs · Like · 7

Matthew J. Peterson In the year 2020, the US Bishops will tell American Catholics they must give up The Neverending Thread on all normal Fridays.
7 hrs · Like · 7

Isak Benedict Peregrine, what would it take to change your mind?
7 hrs · Like

Megan Baird Ok, the Magisterium defines what is truly a Catholic liberal education. Is Peregrine representing the Magisterium then?
7 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure How come you guys don't know the relationship between revelation, dogma and theology -- and how it informs metaphysics?

How come you claim you can know God without error by reason alone, when you don't know this?
7 hrs · Like

JA Escalante whereas you Peregrine are using the fact of admixture of error, without ever noting whether it is really significant error, to invalidate a relatively self-standing metaphysics and replace it with a "sapiential wisdom" which looks like Fideistic gnosis
7 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Just askin.
7 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Pope Peregrine represents nothing. He IS the Magisterium.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Max Summe PB - stop inquisitioning us and ask yourself why you readily assented to... at least 2 different heresies....
7 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante Peregrine come on, you cant even tell the difference between physics and metaphysics, as in the Imm Con discussion! And you're saying *we* have problems with categories?
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 4

Liam Collins What I want to know is what sort of computer voodoo Edward Langley is doing to compile those stats on this thread.
7 hrs · Unlike · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Do you guys believe you can know God and metaphysics by reason alone without some error?

Please say, yes or no.
7 hrs · Like

JA Escalante you didn't originally claim "without some error". Just acknowledge your mistakes, PB. It wont be the end of the world.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Max Summe https://i.imgflip.com/bkcf5.jpg

i.imgflip.com
i.imgflip.com
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

JA Escalante and man, next time TAC sends me a donation request I am sending the letter back marked "PAID"
7 hrs · Like · 6

John Ruplinger the irony: JA defending (or explaining rather) magisterial teaching to PB.
7 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure JA, do you think you can know God or metaphysics by reason alone, always without error. 

Yes or no?
7 hrs · Like

Megan Baird I can't look away from this thread...
7 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Fine, I'll say it. Yes, I believe one can know God and metaphysics by reason alone without some error. All that means is I say it's possible.
7 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure St Thomas and the Church state you cannot know God and metaphysics by reason alone, always without error.

What say you, JA?
7 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure What say you Daniel?
7 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict No they don't.
7 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure What say you, Mr. Langley, Mr. Smarty-pants?
7 hrs · Like

Megan Baird I'd like to see citation for that, Peregrine.
7 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante Peregrine, that's not the issue, dear man. The issue is whether the error (if such is always necessary, and it's not clear that it is; see "easily") is substantially vitiating, or not. I have already given the orthodox account above. It is not necessarily vitiating enough to render metaphysics impossible without revelation.
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Why are you mocking Mr. Langley's intelligence, Peregrine?
7 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante To reiterate:

The question isn't admixture of error (which might be quite small, actually), the question is whether metaphysics is relatively independent and mostly gets it right about God in the formalities it is able to consider Him under. And it is, and does. Where revelation secures metaphysics is in the very highest principial level (creator/creature distinction, preeminently; but also things we would never know by reason, but don't necessarily deny otherwise, like the Trinity), but revelation needs- your Church's words, not just mine- metaphysics to elaborate itself as a human science
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Joel HF Out of curiosity, what metaphysical error are you claiming St Thomas made? Because all I recall are being pointed out thus far are errors either of physical science or theology proper, not metaphysics.
7 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure What say you?

Can you know God and metaphysics by reason alone, always without error?

The Church says no.

St. Thomas' error on the Immaculate Conception demonstrates "no".

This being the case, why do you not teach dogma at TAC? 

Is that reasonable?

What say you?
7 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict ^ Bailiff, club this man. ^
7 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF What would teaching dogma look like? I'm still not clear on how sophomore theology, or senior theology, just to take two examples, fail to qualify.
7 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante but discussing this idiosyncratic Nouvelle Theologie on steroids has been illuminating in certain respects
7 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger THAT is i think the point he will give in on, JA. viz. What do we get wrong following STA in his metaphysics?
7 hrs · Edited · Like

Katie Duda Out of curiosity how do you understand Thomas's error on the immaculate conception?
7 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure JA, my good man, if that is your position, then you are ok with error in knowledge, which is crass.
7 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Katie, see above.
7 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Answer the Duda, Peregrott
7 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia because it was pointed out, AGAIN, earlier that St. Thomas re IC is not a metaphysical error
7 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia just sayin
7 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF What you pointed to above were problems w/ Thomas's understanding of physical science, or at most natural philosophy. One could also argue that Thomas also erred theologically in failing to understand Scripture and Tradition. But, at least as far as I can see, Thomas's metaphysical notions have nothing to do with why he didn't accept the immaculate conception.
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Michael Beitia so to answer "what say you?"

I say to you, Scott, that you question makes no sense because you have no idea what metaphysics is, since you make such a glaringly STUPID category error
6 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Let me recap. JA et al argue that reason alone is necessary for sacred theology. Church teaches that revelation is necessary to preserve reason from error about God and metaphysics. Escalante does not know how Church teaches revelation in Her dogmas and sacred theology.

What's wrong with this picture?
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia unless by "metaphysics" you mean everything that you haven't defined away as "sacred theology" in which case you are a blathering idiot
6 hrs · Edited · Like

Joel HF Who's argued that reason alone is necessary for sacred theology? I think they've denied it.
6 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia No one ever said "reason alone"
Straw man
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia (takes drink)
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia for realz, I'm at home now
6 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante Peregrine why don't you go ahead and find somewhere where I've said what you attribute to me.
6 hrs · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel I have one more hour at work...
6 hrs · Like · 1

Thomas Quackenbush I feel like I've never seen any of thing things Peregrine claims except in his own posts. Perhaps he himself thinks these things, and hates himself for it, and is projecting on us as a coping mechanism...
6 hrs · Like · 4

JA Escalante Really Peregrine, go ahead and find somewhere where I've said that
6 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF People (and the Church) have claimed that God can be known with certainty by reason alone. You do see that this is not the same as saying that reason alone suffices for Sacred Theology?
6 hrs · Like · 3

Max Summe The only reason we are still all in this thread is the length of this thread.

The thread has become the cause of the thread.

Thus, this thread participates in divinity, and thus all of us who participate in this thread also participate in divinity.
6 hrs · Like · 4

John Boyer The position that disparages the study of metaphysics is ultimately Protestant and/or Kantian. Cf Regansburg Address
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia unfortunately it is a manichean divinity, and we're on the wrong side of it
6 hrs · Like

JA Escalante it's certainly not true that Protestantism disparages metaphysics
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Max Summe But still, we must press on, as participation in opposition is better than ceasing to be....
6 hrs · Like

JA Escalante ^actually that's false; I'm a Calvinist
6 hrs · Like

John Boyer This thread is not an imitation of the divine. It's an imitation of twitter where everyone basically follows everyone else.
6 hrs · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel I am pretty sure that no body has claimed that reason alone is necessary for theology. Earlier you objected to the claim that it was possible to have knowledge of God by reason alone, contrary to the magisterial pontifications of the pre and post conciliar church. But to suggest that the claim was reason alone was sufficient for theology is crass disrespect for the positions held
6 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia hence the "or" put up your claws
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia ^and poor reading skillz
6 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger In his defense, his argumentum ab ignorantia seems invincible. He doesnt know what metaphysics or metaphor are.
6 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia http://massappeal.com/.../thug-life-knuckles-jason...

massappeal.com
massappeal.com
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia or syllogism or the difference between some and all or.....
6 hrs · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure We must conclude that TAC misleads, with crass ignorance.
6 hrs · Like

Aaron Dunkel Is it possible to know cause & effect without the gift of revelation?
6 hrs · Like · 1

Max Summe PB is too hopped up on all the attention he's getting in this thread to read and respond to things that have ACTUALLY BEEN SAID.
6 hrs · Like · 4

Aaron Dunkel Is it possible to know of the division of mover and of moved in beings in motion?
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Conclude, Scott? Like the conclusion of a metaphor?
6 hrs · Like · 1

Max Summe Facebook is like an irresponsible bartender. If they were looking at this thread, we all would have been cut off by now.
6 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I'm just waiting for Langley to recalculate the totals. I've got to be pushing a grand by now
6 hrs · Like

Max Summe wait what there are totals by contributor?
6 hrs · Like

John Boyer Of course. *Lights match, sets paper on fire. Repeats*
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Oh yeah.
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia waaaay back pre 3500
6 hrs · Like

Aaron Dunkel Catechism of the Catholic Church

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD 

31 Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person. 

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe. 

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7 
And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material",9 can have its origin only in God. 

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".10 

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

John Ruplinger seriously, Beitia has had me lol more the last two days than the last 4 years from things read on fb.
6 hrs · Like · 3

Max Summe Aaron Dunkel nice catechism quote, but you need to quote from the Magisterium 
6 hrs · Like · 1

Max Summe or the Deposit of Faith. That is also acceptable...
6 hrs · Like

John Boyer Unless you have a Humean epistemology leading to an event ontology, in which case you may think you know cause and effect, but you are wrong. Substance ontology and power model of causality FTW.
6 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Aaron, he already heretically denied VI
6 hrs · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel I will now quote from the MYSTERIUM: "blah blah blah blah"
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia quote from the Imperium
6 hrs · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel "we, who are about to die, salute you"....is that what you are looking for?
6 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I was thinking "Luke, I'm your father" but whatever
6 hrs · Like · 3

Isak Benedict MB, I said "reason alone," but I was being reactionary and provocative. I shall avoid this. It clearly does more harm than good.
6 hrs · Like

Megan Baird "Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant"
6 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer And now for something completely different: http://youtu.be/jT6i1kw4rEQ

VIDEO - Dumbass Manages to Set Himself on Fire During Ice Bucket Challenge
(Gawker.com) - If you had to imagine the platonic form of a failed ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, it would probably involve a guy in camo cargo pants and an Ameri...
6 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia Isak, it really makes no difference, IMHO. I'm just here for the lolz anyway
6 hrs · Like · 1

Megan Baird This Thread really does need to be immortalized somehow.
6 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict PB: "We must conclude that TAC misleads, with crass ignorance."

Peregrine, I consider that a slap in the face with your glove. I accept your challenge and insist you choose your weapons. Put up, or shut up.
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia oh don't take him seriously (he's on the spectrum)
6 hrs · Like

Megan Baird I'd again like to see citations for Peregrine's assertions. Otherwise it's just "blah blah blah."
6 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante ^really not appropriate for an alumni thread, like really not
6 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante you should remove it
6 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia yeah, I'm old and prudish, I'm going to second that
6 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger mb, he is NOT an heretic. As with faith, reason is PREREQUISITE.
6 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia okay, material heretic
6 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict The spectrum of what, MB?
6 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Get rid of that ear garbage
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum

Autism spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The autism spectrum or autistic spectrum describes a range of conditions classified as neurodevelopmental disorders in the fifth revision of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5). The DSM-5, published in 2013, redefined the a…
6 hrs · Like

Max Summe Aaron Dunkel - WTF was that..............................
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia It's another of my ways of being offensive, Isak
6 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger i now wish i could read his comments. "Crass ignorance" eminating from the fence of those teeth. The irony
6 hrs · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel it was nothing.....mostly an hilarious, but terribly imprudent music video
6 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict He's not saying anything worth hearing, Mr. Ruplinger. Take it as a badge of honor I suppose.
6 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure At TAC, the story goes, the go from class to class,
Their faith is in the seminar where ignorance is crass...
6 hrs · Like

Aaron Dunkel we will forget it ever happened
6 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Ah yes, my friends, lose an argument by denying dogma, embrace error, and run.
6 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict My mind is boggled.
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia what dogma have I denied, seriously?
6 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF That is what you've been doing, Peregrine, yes.
6 hrs · Unlike · 3

Michael Beitia and seriously, "run" that hasn't happened
6 hrs · Like · 3

Isak Benedict We have denied no dogma, embraced no error, and done the opposite of run. What planet are you on, you darling cretin?
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Magisterius V, the most repetitive assertion filled planet in the galaxy
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Megan Baird Again, Peregrine, I ask for proof of your assertions. You can't simply throw out inflammatory & accusatory comments without backing them up. Text, verse, and volume, please.
6 hrs · Like · 2

JA Escalante oh yes he can
6 hrs · Unlike · 3

JA Escalante trust me
6 hrs · Unlike · 3

Megan Baird Okay, strike that: he CAN but he shouldn't. Poor form.
6 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia JAson, you've been here since the beginning. I'm raising a glass for you right now
6 hrs · Like · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure If knowledge of metaphysics and God by reason alone is not possible without error, and the Church provides a remedy in Her dogma and theology, why does TAC remain so crass by not allowing the Church's dogma and theology into its curriculum?

Why does the college teach that metaphysics is necessary for a full development of theology, when the opposite is true -- metaphysics can only be freed from error by theology informed by dogma.

Why did TAC establish its curriculum on this false notion? 

Is this because TAC adheres to Liberalism instead of the truly Catholic liberal arts?

Or was it because the founders of the college were reactionary?
6 hrs · Like

John Boyer YES! You uncovered the truth. TAC was established by modernists who cling to the heresy of Americanism and that Masonic invention of Vatican II.
6 hrs · Like · 7

Michael Beitia Uhm, Scott, "metaphysics is necessary for a full development of theology" 
and 
"Metaphysics can only be freed from error by theology"
are not contradictory
6 hrs · Like · 6

Peregrine Bonaventure Megan Baird, what assertion? That Thomas erred in metaphysics? Or that TAC errs in its understanding of Faith and Reason?
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia where did St. Thomas err in metaphysics?
6 hrs · Like · 1

Matthew J. Peterson In 2020 the bishops will allow children under seven who can read, as well as the old and infirm, to continue to use the Thread on Fridays. But all others will be encouraged to abstain.
6 hrs · Like · 8

John Boyer The smell of sulfur greets you as you approach the campus, a sign of the hellfire which lurks behind the gates of the campus.
6 hrs · Unlike · 5

Megan Baird Peregrine: I guess I'm not clear on how TAC does not "allow" the Church's dogma and theology into its curriculum.
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia See the peregrine fly from my questions...... chicken really
6 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer Peregrine, are you a traditionalist? Just wondering...
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia ^NO^
6 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia he isn't. Trust me
6 hrs · Like

Megan Baird Thomas Aquinas is called the Angelic doctor due to his grasp on sacred theology... and we devote considerable time to studying his work (to say nothing about other doctors of the Church) so, Peregrine, I'm really not seeing your point.
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

John Boyer I guess my University is bad because it now requires taking philosophy before theology.
6 hrs · Unlike · 2

Peregrine Bonaventure Uhm, Michael, mr smartest man in the room, who said these were contradictory?

I just said TAC errs by denying, in principle and practice, that metaphysics without relevation leads to error about God.
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia you did, dumbass
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia and I quote "THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE"
6 hrs · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick *cough* Scotis was wrong about the IC also *cough*
6 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict PB: "why does TAC remain so crass by not allowing the Church's dogma and theology into its curriculum?"

This is utter garbage, and anyone with half a brain can see that just by virtue of the fact that TAC students spend TWO FULL YEARS reading Thomas Aquinas himself (THE Doctor of the Church!), TAC as a school does not merely allow the Church's dogma into its curriculum, it wholly supports it. It gives Thomas THE position of importance.

The fact that you cannot even grant a modicum of respect to this argument or to the school tells me that you are a willfully ignorant man.
6 hrs · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick CUA requires a year of philosophy too! And a semester of theology which may be done either semester 
6 hrs · Like

Katie Duda So. Flogiston...
6 hrs · Like · 4

John Ruplinger pope pb excommunicates neopalagian meanies.
6 hrs · Like · 2

John Boyer Peregrine, can you please enumerate the errors which Metaphysics reaches without revelation? Clearly enumerate them. Otherwise this shall continue to be a thread full of assertion, counter-assertion, snark, snark, snark, rinse repeat....not that I'm not enjoying the jokes, but seriously, can you please make a list of the errors which are admixed with the truth?
6 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia don't derail this Katie, I finally got him to answer me
6 hrs · Like · 4

Isak Benedict Hey nonny nonny and a ha-cha-cha
6 hrs · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick As an aside, this thread has made my friend list sky rocket. . .
6 hrs · Like · 4

Peregrine Bonaventure Megan, TAC does not provide an outlay of the Church's theology informed by dogma. In fact, almost all of its students to not even know what this means. On the contrary, TACs Charter asserts that metaphysics is necessary for the full development of theology. The curriculum of TAC is established on this false claim. This claim is false because metaphysics and knowledge of God is not without admixture of error by reason alone, but only by revelation; hence, the need for an outlay of the Church's dogmatic theology.

An example: Thomas and Aristotle erred in metaphysical understanding of the cause of the ensoulment, leading Thomas to argue against the Immaculate Conception.
6 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Everyone is making friends except Peregrine.
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia the cause of ensoulment is STILL biological, Scott
6 hrs · Like · 3

Aaron Dunkel Peregrine, do you know whence comes Dogma?
6 hrs · Like · 3

Frank Morris JA Escalante i think Peregrine Bonaventure just identified the premise of which he objects.
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia therefore, your example is NOT an example
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia But yet another glaring category error
6 hrs · Like · 1

Aaron Dunkel You sound similar to somebody who proposes the outlawing of butchering cattle because you can buy beef at the grocery store.
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 6

Frank Morris Theology can not be fully developed.
6 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia nice....
6 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure John Boyer, I just need to list one. Aristotle erred in his notion of ensoulment. Thomas erred on this point also. This was a moral and metaphysical question about the formal unity of man. This error was the reason why Thomas and the Dominicans denied the Immaculate Conception.

There are many examples.

The Church teaches that God and metaphysics cannot be known by reason alone without admixture of error.

The Church sacred and dogmatic theology, informed by revelation, purges metaphysics of error. 

This is why TAC cannot rest on the claim that metaphysics and reason alone bring the full development of theology. This is why TAC must provide instruction of dogmatic theology, in order for it not to participate in crass ignorance.

Gotta run, people.

I love TAC.

What, 5000 posts now?

9000

What say you?
6 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger i need to explain my above statement. PB doesnt deny V I as far as i can tell. The real problem is that to be an heretic, you have to understand 2 things: THAT you reject an article; and at least imprecisely at least what that article means. But on both counts, it is doubtful in pb's case. He has shown he cannot grasp words all the while railing against the need for reason to have Faith.
6 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia I say that the denial of the Immaculate Conception was BIOLOGICAL
6 hrs · Like

Frank Morris i think pb is right.
6 hrs · Like

Katie Duda Does it matter if Thomas erred? Does that negate the necessity of metaphysics in explicating divine revelation?
6 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris immaculate conception is infallible.
6 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Yes, to him, no to the rest of us. The IC is not a metaphysical point. It is a theological point, the repudiation of which was biological
5 hrs · Like · 1

Katie Duda No. IC is not infallible. It is true.
5 hrs · Like

Frank Morris IC was when the magesterium declared it's infallibility...or maybe I'm wrong.
5 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia True, but saying that women don't have souls until X days after conception is a biological point, that was factually wrong.

Thought experiment: what if biology showed that DNA didn't show up until day 14 after implantation? then what?
5 hrs · Like

Katie Duda Of course. I'm word quibbling.
5 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris Katie, please help me...was IC the only time the magesterium declared itself infallible.
5 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris is the truth infallible?
5 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Who is this Scott Weinberg? What is he like in person? I can't believe the things I'm reading, and I can't believe he's serious. Sometimes he says things that make me think I'm dealing with a human being. Am I?
5 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Scott-bot (as I posted 4800 comments ago)
5 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Frank - only twice did the Pope speak 100% infallibly. The Immaculate Conception, and Mary's Assumption body and soul into Heaven.
5 hrs · Like · 4

Aaron Dunkel I believe the other ex cathedra papal proclamation was the doctrine of the Assumption of the BVM
5 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Frank Morris thanks Isak Benedict
5 hrs · Like

Katie Duda I don't understand the question. I meant only to say that infallible is a word meaning incapable of error. A statement is not infallible but the body declaring it might be
5 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia quibbling.... are you back in town?
5 hrs · Like

Frank Morris Isak helped moi...no problem with quibbles.
5 hrs · Like

Katie Duda Beitia. Yes! Mr. Morris. Apologies. I distracted from your question
5 hrs · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick Ok so we can't read anyone that was ever wrong about any matter is what I'm getting out of this.
5 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I still owe you a drink, and I'd still like to read your dis....
5 hrs · Like

Frank Morris lauren, pope benedict started his letter on faith with nietzsche...you tell me.
5 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia what about Pope Peregrott?
5 hrs · Like

Frank Morris Michael Beitia that was a german joke...
5 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Correct, Lauren. That is the way to madness. Everyone is wrong except Pope Grottburg.
5 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger Pastor Aeternus indicates a much broader range of infallibility: when he DEFINES a matter of Faith to the whole Church as the supreme teacher.
5 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger JPII infallibly taught on abortion and women priests (and one other matter i forget)
5 hrs · Like · 3

Lauren Ogrodnick Ahhh makes sense. So what is his understanding of the Immaculate Conception? Wait a second! Wasn't the reason it took so long to define because we had to make it "understandablish" aka it couldn't be a contradiction. (People during Thomas' time - and before- were saying it happened before conception which doesn't work since there was no human nature at that time) The IC took the Church almost 2000 years to define, it doesn't work well as an example for anything.
5 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger no it doesnt
5 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger HUGE recent slew of articles on whether canonizations are infallible.
5 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris i think it's an example that faith, is more pleasing to God than anything else.
5 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict John - there are disagreements about whether or not those instances meet all of the qualifications necessary for a teaching to be considered infallible. The two I mentioned are the only ones that meet every single criterion (as far as I know!)
5 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I"m out
5 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Obviously, for example, canonization is considered infallible too, but not (I think) to the same degree. (Maybe "degree" is the wrong word to use there?)
5 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Grace perfecting nature does not mean reading Aristotle in a prayerful posture, as Daniel says.

It means reading metaphysics in light of the dogmatic theology of the Church informed by revelation.

So, a Catholic curriculum which includes "theology" but not the dogmatic theology of the Church, is fraudulent.
5 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger that you know. I summarized the criteria. Its in Pastor Aeternus: only 3, maybe 4, criteria. But there is debate and need for clarification.
5 hrs · Like · 2

Katie Duda One thing. It seems to me a tacit lesson of the curriculum is the capability of human error in all sciences. Nonetheless, the human mind is also capable to recognize errors. Theology has of course a greater authority, but aquinas didn't err because he refused to a submit to that authority.
5 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Frank Morris i read aristotle's metaphysics...very redundant.
5 hrs · Like

Frank Morris but Katie, at the end, it was all straw...accept the song of songs.
5 hrs · Like

Frank Morris little gazelles. prancing in the light of stars...................
5 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger a major long held objection in regard to canonization is that it doesnt involve doctrine but is judgement of a contingent matter. Doesnt mean it shouldnt be held de fide without very serious reasons. And then this is only the opinion of the Roman school. Let me be clear that I have no reason at all to doubt any canonization under the rules of Urban VIII but since their removal some Catholics (not just trads) have been troubled by particular canonizations.
5 hrs · Edited · Like

Samantha Cohoe John-- what's the consensus view at this point? I'd find it a bit easier to be Catholic if I didn't have to believe in all canonizations de fide.
5 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe Peregrin-- what specifically do you propose TAC should add to the curriculum, so as to teach "dogmatic theology?"
5 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger the old are very secure. I didnt have doubt til about a month ago. Its ok to hold a doubt imo. I have wavered a bit. I have 4 other reasons too. I have heard some would leave the church recently.
5 hrs · Like

Mike Potemra I think, at this point, we need to move into the "historical-critical period" of this thread. I propose, therefore, that "Peregrine Bonaventure" was not an actual person, but a redactor's combination of three or four different sources that existed at the beginning of the thread.
5 hrs · Like · 5

Samantha Cohoe Mike- Nice try. By definition, TACers don't know how to apply the historical-critical method.
5 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger i dont know the consensus. The majority view is, i believe, that they are infallible. But this position itself is not infallible. If u follow.
5 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Frank Morris Peregrine Bonaventure your serve...
5 hrs · Like · 1

Samantha Cohoe John,I do, thanks.
5 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley Joshua Kenz probably knows if there are any authoritative pronouncements on the infallibility of canonizations. I've was taught that they are infallible but I don't know the justification for that.
5 hrs · Like · 1

Mike Potemra heh, heh, Samantha! I went to the Catholic University of America in D.C., and we weren't taught anything BUT the historical-critical method. (And, oh yeah, social justice. Because Democrats LOL.)
5 hrs · Like · 2

Edward Langley All canonization indicates, however, is that this person was an example of "heroic virtue". It doesn't imply anything about the appropriateness of imitating their particular actions or about the truth of their intellectual positions.
5 hrs · Like

Edward Langley This is interesting, but hardly definitive: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Beatification and Canonization
www.newadvent.org
According to some writers the origin in the Catholic Church is to be traced back to the ancient pagan apotheosis
5 hrs · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

John Ruplinger definitions. definitions. What is heroic virtue? That is a problem these days.
5 hrs · Like · 2

Samantha Cohoe I guess I'm thinking of cases where the canonizations didn't follow any particular display of evidence but were made for pretty clearly political reasons, Thomas Becket for instance.
4 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe Also, there are lots of saints I don't like, so it's petty, too.
4 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley Well, I don't think any amount of evidence can ever provide the degree of certitude required.
4 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris miracles can be like that.
4 hrs · Like

Edward Langley That is, it seems to me that it is impossible in principle (excluding a universal revelation from God) to provide enough evidence to convince each person in the world that person X really is in heaven from that evidence alone. Consequently, there will always be a gap between the evidence the Church presents for a person's sanctity and the certitude implied by her judgment on the matter.

I think the evidence (miracles, etc.) relate to canonization the way dialectical arguments about principles relates to intellectus of them (if that analogy makes any sense).
4 hrs · Like · 2

Frank Morris ok....mystery is part of this game. but so is free will. thanks for this thread. i needed a break.
4 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger Edward, thanks for the link. And, Samantha, i would be cautious about your seemingly human objections. St. Neri was entirely opposed to Ignatius in life but both are in heaven now.
4 hrs · Like

Samantha Cohoe Yes, well, they aren't just *seemingly* human objections. Human objections are the only kind I make.
4 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger Miracles ARE the strongest evidence. When the definition of miracle changes . . . is problem.
4 hrs · Like · 1

Frank Morris a miracle defies reason. 
4 hrs · Like

Edward Langley It's actually interesting that St. Thomas denies that a miracle violates the natural order, since the natural order of things is for all creatures to obey the will of God.
4 hrs · Like · 3

Edward Langley As St. Augustine puts it, miracles violate the "manifest order of causes"
4 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger one of my favorite saints is st. Philomena: no historical record, lots of miracles (Piur IX was personally healed.)
4 hrs · Like · 2

Joel HF The majority view is canonization is infallible, but with a strong minority dissent. Lots has been written on the matter recently. I don't follow the rationale of the majority view, and find the minority position convincing, personally. But as a Catholic one would still owe obsequium religiosum, so practically speaking there isn't all that much difference.
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

John Ruplinger right and it is a matter of precept too which the linked article reminded me of. (That is a matter of obedience.)
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Isak Benedict I am so impressed by the intelligence and kindness of so many people on this thread. This is quite nice.
4 hrs · Like · 4

Isak Benedict Sometimes I just sit back and read as the comments pop up. Lovely!
4 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure How droll, Edward Langley. Miracles, though reasonable, can only be believed in faith.
4 hrs · Like

Adrw Lng The comments are a roller coaster of intelligence and kindness and inanity and error, but the sheer quantity is what continues to amaze me
4 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure The Church's dogmatic theology is informed by revelation. It is wonderful to study under a trained theologian. TAC should avail students to this, if only as an intro, to help them at least see how faith and reason, metaphysics and faith work together academically. If TAC did this a bit better, truly you would conquer the world. But till then, something is stopping you.

Being stopped is not a good thing to be.

We can discuss more practical applications in a bit.
4 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict You know what would be droll, Edward? If there were some way of figuring out, not the number of comments or quantity of words, but the physical length of The Thread. I realize, since it is Threadness itself, that such a question is silly. But maybe if it could be printed out on a roll of paper, we might be able to approximate its near-infinite nature?
4 hrs · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick A roll of toilet paper?
4 hrs · Like · 3

Isak Benedict No - toilet paper is too noble for the stomping grounds of the Peregrine.
4 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Toilet paper has a use. 
4 hrs · Like · 3

Isak Benedict In all seriousness, I was thinking a roll of teletype paper, like Kerouac's "On The Road."
4 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure On second thought, dogmatic theology might be a bit above you guys.
4 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict A wise man speaks because he has something to say, Bonaventure. A fool, because he has to say something. Do you feel better after that little piece of condescension?
4 hrs · Like · 1

Lauren Ogrodnick Sometimes humor is necessary to keep spirits alive and to keep plowing through life.
4 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Tis not condescension, but a bit of practical wisdom. Trust me.
4 hrs · Like

Nina Rachele Along the same lines, Isak, I was just wondering how many hours a dramatic reading of this thread would be.
4 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure How many TACers does it take to change a light bulb?
4 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger this would be a very short thread if composed by wise men, Isak. 
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Nina Rachele Though it might be better as an opera, then we could have multiple parts going at once.
4 hrs · Like · 3

Isak Benedict Nina - a dramatic reading would be magnificent. I propose we cast The Thread with actors of distinctive voice. I don't know about you guys, but I'm hearing Alan Rickman in my head as Peregrine Bonaventure.
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Isak Benedict I don't trust you as far as I could throw you, PB.
4 hrs · Like

Nina Rachele hmm, a good suggestion. trying to think of who for Beitia...
4 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Jack Nicholson as Michael Beitia.
4 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure Freshman theology should include an intro to dogmatic theology, because revelation is not just the Bible, but the Bible and tradition informing the Church's dogmatic theology. Then would be reading the Bible in context, as a formal unity, not just as a book. This would be the first fix.
4 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Al Pacino as Josh Kenz.
4 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure You could never throw me Isak. But trust is not impossible.
4 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger OUCH. and ouch
4 hrs · Edited · Like

Isak Benedict Did you just call yourself fat? Haha
4 hrs · Like · 1

Joel HF Great. Any examples or explanations of what such an intro would be?
4 hrs · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure You could throw me Isak, so trust me too.
4 hrs · Like

Nina Rachele i was thinking, it has to be an American. Peterson should be Morgan Freeman
4 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Wait - so I could never throw you, but I could also throw you? The man is a schizophrenic. Someone please get him some help!
4 hrs · Like

Joel HF I see PB more as a Wallace Shawn type, Isak.
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Peregrine Bonaventure Yes, you could start with the Church's dogmatic theology on the Immaculate Conception. This is original source material. You could add this to when you read the Book of Revelation or the Wisdom Books. That would be very easy and good.
4 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict That's brilliant, Bonaventure. Someone give this man a cigar.
4 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger i see nothing. Drawing a complete blank.
4 hrs · Like

Joel HF And Matthew J. Peterson more as a Jeff Bridges character.
4 hrs · Like · 3

Peregrine Bonaventure You could add the dogmatic theology on faith and reason too, all original source, during the Wisdom books, or even during the Pentateuch. This would be great, fun and easy to do. There is an ongoing dialogue between the two traditions. Dogma supports and perfects it.
4 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Thank you Isak.
4 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure But call me Peregrine.
3 hrs · Like

Nina Rachele Jeff Bridges! that is a good idea, but I really think someone should be Morgan Freeman...
3 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict You're incredible, Peregrine. May I peel you a grape?
3 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Perhaps Your Excellency requires a footstool? I would offer my own back, but it is too unworthy for Your Wisdom to rest his superior feet upon.
3 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Jug jug.
3 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Throw me Isak.
3 hrs · Like

Peregrine Bonaventure Reading Scripture without Tradition and dogmatic theology is what Protestants and atheists do.
3 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict Put on your fighting trousers, Scott.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iRTB-FTMdk

Fighting Trousers - Professor Elemental
you can now follow us on twitter Moog_Peculiana prof_elemental www.professorelemental.com The first singe from professor elemental's ep: the indifference eng...
3 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict I don't like your tweed, sir.
3 hrs · Like

Matthew J. Peterson I'll settle for Sam Elliott playing the Big Lebowski/Thread narrator.
3 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Bekah Sims Andrews Dear heavens this thread has looped around and we're back at the beginning.
3 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict What's wrong with reading the Bible as literature?
3 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict There is no beginning, Bekah. The Threadness is without limit.
3 hrs · Like · 1

John Kunz Under 5,000 comments? Nope. I don't get up in the morning for less than 7k
3 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Not even for the tantalizing smell of some good ol' home-cooked holistic sacred theology?
3 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict John - the voice choices weren't insults. Those actors have amazing, distinctive voices.
3 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia bullshit on your Jack Nicholson....too tall
3 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Perescott: failure to make distinctions is what dumb people do
3 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia good to be back
3 hrs · Like · 2

Michael Beitia unless it is "one flew over" Jack. I'll take that
3 hrs · Like · 1

Nina Rachele sixteen more til 5000 let's break out the fireworks
3 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict I was thinking One Flew Over, actually.
3 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia ah shucks, and I just inter-met you
3 hrs · Edited · Like

Isak Benedict Welcome home Beitia
3 hrs · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz I am disappointed...got back from work, and you are short of 5000....you lazy post padders
3 hrs · Like · 6

Isak Benedict Although I think the tall factor would not matter for a radio drama, Michael
3 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict I want to hear whatever harebrained theory PB has about reading/not reading the Bible as a piece of magnificent literature.
3 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland So close! Be kind, children.
3 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Kind? mmm.... nope
3 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Hey Kenz.... talk to me when you crack the top five
3 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland Is everyone waiting to jump on 5000?
3 hrs · Like

Nina Rachele I think so...
3 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Probably.. I missed 4000 by one today so screw it, I'm not trying again
3 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Isak Benedict I must be cruel only to be kind.
3 hrs · Like · 1

Catherine Ryland I think you got it, Beetiea.
3 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Is "I think so" worse than "at"
3 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia no, it was you
3 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger nope
3 hrs · Like

Nina Rachele haha, congrats mr. beitia you are the winner
3 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia Do I get a pony? I've always wanted a pony
3 hrs · Like · 2

Catherine Ryland "I'm not trying again..."
3 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict http://1001bottlesofbeer.com/.../04/812-Haywards-5000.jpg

1001bottlesofbeer.com
1001bottlesofbeer.com
3 hrs · Like · 1

Nina Rachele no, pretty sure it was you
3 hrs · Like

Nina Rachele anyway, doesn't matter.... now that we've reached 5000 I can sleep comfortably.
3 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia apparently so can everyone else.
3 hrs · Like

Lauren Ogrodnick Can you imagine freshmen reading about the immaculate Conception! We might as well jump to the Trinity! Also Freshmen theology comes from St Augustine's advice to familiarize once self with scripture before embarking deeper into theology. Also part of the point is teaching us sola scriptura doesn't work and we come out of freshmen year appreciating that we do need the teaching Church.
3 hrs · Like · 4

Isak Benedict Commenting on this thread is starting to feel like fighting your way to the very front of a train that's hurtling towards a cliff. And infinity is over the edge.
3 hrs · Like · 4

Isak Benedict Lauren - exactly. You are taking much more seriously than I that latest grand insanity from Pope Venturegrine.
3 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Lauren you're so right. I came to TAC as an atheist, who had read the Bible (as a reference) several times. It is an underlying, like counting is to arithmetic
3 hrs · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Well, I thought I would try. Listening to freshmen discuss scripture was hard enough... The immaculate conception would have been suicidal.
3 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict What you said.
3 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia and the funny thing is, one can have the truths of the faith presented to them, and still take it as a cultural reference: "the Catholics believe such and such" "for the Zen Buddhists, the ultimate goal is Nirvana" blah blah blah. Just because it is presented doesn't mean it requires any assent other than from a cultural-historical perspective
3 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger Positions available: my new start up 12 stepper: TNET A
2 hrs · Like · 1

Michael Beitia I took John's method and I'm now free from TNET
2 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict World Spirit Networking recommends TNET. And WE NEED DONATIONS.
2 hrs · Like · 1

John Boyer This could always end up on twitter with #tnet
2 hrs · Like · 3

Michael Beitia I prefer #gnosis
2 hrs · Like · 2

John Boyer Either way, this thread reminds me of twitter back around 2009.
2 hrs · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Moses supposes his toes are roses, but Moses' gnosis is erroneous
2 hrs · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Btw, I've seen a single TACer screw in a light bulb on multiple occasions. Thanks work study!
2 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger when michael returns, tell him i have a first 5 are free discount in the 8128 step program.
2 hrs · Like · 2

Isak Benedict Michael is here I think?
2 hrs · Like

Joshua Kenz Edward Langley. The Church has not definitively taught on the infallibility of canonizations. Benedict tried to underscore it by ceasing to do most beatifications, restoring the old way of having someone else doit. A beatification of course is either merely permissive for veneration, or only orders veneration for a particular Church, order, group, etc. It is because of the universality of canoization that an argument can be made. In condemning the Council of Pistoia, the Church required it to be held that in matters of universal discipline, the Church cannot impose anything on the faithful positively harmful. So while a better practice may exist, the UNIVERSAL discipline cannot be positively harmful.

Canonization is at least, in form, a universal discipline, even if, nowadays, not every saint is actually venerated by all the faithul (via Mass e.g.)

St. Thomas wrote on this (my translation)

The argument for the infallibility of canonization rests solely on it affecting the universal prayer of the Church. If the saints we pray to were actually in hell, the Church's worship is in vain.

Whether all saints which are canonized by the Church must be in glory, or may some of them be in Hell?

And it seems that some can be in Hell, of those who are canonized in the Church

For no one can be certain of the state of another, just as he himself of himself, since what belongs to a man, no one knows but the spirit of the man, which is in himself, as it says in I Cor. 2:11. But man cannot be certain of himself, whether he is in the state of salvation, for it is said in Eccl. 9:1, "No one knows, whether he be worthy of hate or love." Therefore, the Pope knows much less, therefore he can err in canonizing.

Furthermore, whoever in judging begins with a fallible means can err. But the Church in canonizing saints begins with human testimony, since she inquires through witnesses about the life and miracles. Therefore, since the testimony of men is fallible, it seems that the Church can err in canonizing the saints.

But against this, in the Church there cannot be a damnable error. But this would be a damnable error, if one were venerated as a saint who was a sinner, since some knowing his sins would believe this to be false, and it such were to happen, they could be led to error. Therefore the Church cannot err in such things.

Furthermore, Augustine says in a letter to Jerome, that if in the canonical Scripture some lying is admitted, our faith, which depends on the canonical Scripture, would be shaken. But just as we are held to believe that which is in the sacred Scripture, just so that which is commonly determined by the Church. Whence he is judged a heretic who opines against the determination of the Councils. Therefore, the common judgment of the Church cannot be erroneous, and thus the same as said above.

I respond that it must be said, that something can be judge possible considered according to itself, which related to something extrinsic, is found to be impossible. Therefore, I say that the judgment of those who preside in the Church can err in whatever matter, if in respect to their persons only. But if divine providence is considered, which directs His Church by the Holy Spirit that it may not err, just as He promised in John 9, "that the coming Spirit shall teach every truth," namely in things necessary for salvation, it is certain that it is impossible for the judgment of the universal Church to err in those things which pertain to faith. Whence, the statements, pronounced in judgment by the pope to whom it pertains to make determinations about the faith, are to stand more than the opinions about Scripture of any of the wise whatsoever. Since it is read that Caiphas, although he was unworthy, since since he was pontiff, also prophesied unknowingly, John 11:51. But in other statement which pertain to particular facts, as when it treats of possessions or crimes or others of this sort, it is possible for the judgment of the Church to err because of false witnesses.

But the canonization of the saints is a mean between these two. Since, nevertheless, the honor which we exhibit to the saints, is a certain profession of the faith, by which we believe in the glory of the saints, it must be piously believed that the Church is also unable to err in this.

To the first, therefore, it must be said that the Pontiff, to whom it belongs to canonize saints, can be made certain of the state of another through the inquisition of life and the attestation of miracles, and precisely through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who examines all things, even the profound things of God.

To the second it must be said, that divine providence preserves the Church lest in such things it is deceived by the fallible testimony of men
Quodlibet IX, q. 8 ad 2
2 hrs · Like · 4

Lauren Ogrodnick Sooo.... In dumb man's terms
2 hrs · Like

John Boyer ie tl;dr
2 hrs · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz Some of the Church can err in its discipline, even worship. The whole Church cannot. Beatiication is "some of the Church," canoniztion is all of it.
2 hrs · Like · 2

Lauren Ogrodnick Ok, that's what I thought.
2 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia ^nice recovery^
2 hrs · Like · 1

Edward Langley It looks to me that what it comes down to is that there is a widely held theological opinion that canonization is an exercise of infallibility, but no definitive statement to that effect.
2 hrs · Like · 4

Isak Benedict Quite. And as far as I can see, there is not likely to be one!
2 hrs · Like · 1

John Ruplinger The CE article Edward linked is more comprehensive bvt STA gives the best reason for it.
2 hrs · Like

Isak Benedict By the way John Ruplinger, this is a long time coming - sorry I was so belligerent back in the 600s of this thread. I do believe I misunderstood your jokes.
2 hrs · Like · 4

John Ruplinger that was another era. Lots of misunderstanding.
2 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger I took nothing personal and its hard to see people's intent or expression behind a screen.
2 hrs · Like · 2

John Boyer That's what ALL CAPS ARE FOR! ANGRY TYPING! 
2 hrs · Like · 5

John Ruplinger i am also belligerent and rash. Hard to know how it appears.
2 hrs · Like

John Boyer Sooooooo, any thoughts on Descartes's ontological argument? What do y'all remember about it from junior year? (I'm outsourcing lecture prep due to getting home late)
2 hrs · Like · 3

John Ruplinger OR TO BE SEEN over the mellifluous lalagations of pb.
2 hrs · Like

Megan Caughron How many people on this thread are teachers...?
2 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante me sometimes
2 hrs · Like

JA Escalante Boyer obviously is
2 hrs · Like

Megan Caughron I mean, claim a teaching job on tax documents. You know what i mean!
2 hrs · Like

JA Escalante I did know what you meant
2 hrs · Like

John Boyer Yup
2 hrs · Like

JA Escalante Peterson is
2 hrs · Like

John Boyer Daniel Lendman is a grad student. Don't know if he teaches any classes...
2 hrs · Like

Michael Beitia Not me, anymore, thank God
2 hrs · Like

John Ruplinger BACK to the canonization question, my objection derives from the same principle as Aquinas. It is serious matter. I wish it were not so. But the Faith itself is at stake. I leave it at that and say only I am certain of the Church's indefectability.
2 hrs · Like · 1

JA Escalante I can imagine an argument for non-infallible canonization which wouldn't compromise the principle of indefectibility or anything else essential to RC belief
2 hrs · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz Mr. Escalante I have seen such arguments too. But they are hard to reconcile with the, albeit hard to state the authority of, condemnation of Pistoia (the Church has a habit of list 100 propositions, and then say they are all heretic, savoring of heresy, favorable to sectarianism and/or offensive to pious ears, without saying which is which)
2 hrs · Like · 2

John Ruplinger what proposition is condemned? . . . Forget it. I just took in your whole statement, but i think i will revert to my much safer opinion. So thanks, Joshua and Edward. (I have a narrower argument that doesn't affect infallibility of canonization. Maybe i will pm you.)
2 hrs · Edited · Like

Isak Benedict I'm getting paid to teach too, Megan...hahaha
1 hr · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Just taught sophomores about Raymond and Bohemond of the 1st Crusade today! 
1 hr · Like

Jeff Neill But if tac taught the "fullness of the magisterium of the church" this wouldn't be a question right now, right?
1 hr · Like · 3

Isak Benedict ^This man knows what's up.^
1 hr · Like · 1

John Boyer I need an app just for this silly thread.
1 hr · Like · 2

Joshua Kenz Boyer, don't worry....the Thread has an app for you already
1 hr · Like

Jeff Neill I only lived next to Beitia and with the other carlin
1 hr · Like

Isak Benedict The Thread has already carved your tombstone, John.
1 hr · Like · 3

Daniel P. O'Connell I'm a teacher, Megan.
1 hr · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell The Yankees win!!!!!!!
1 hr · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell (That was the sports, now back to you, Bob.)
1 hr · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell "To al newe professirs and teacheres about to teache: Ye are awesome. An invisible & beneficent unicorn shal protect yow on yower first daye." —@LeVostreGC
1 hr · Like · 1

Sam Rocha I am a teacher in at least one sense of the word.
1 hr · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell ^sorites?
1 hr · Like

Isak Benedict But do not despair, John - for it has also built your cradle.
1 hr · Edited · Like · 1

Joshua Kenz But did it nurse him?
1 hr · Like · 1

Jody Haaf Garneau Back to Peregrine's statement: "Reading Scripture without Tradition and dogmatic theology is what Protestants and atheists do."

What say you? I don't see this being answered. 

I don't agree with Scott. I think a fair reading of the text is permissible by Catholics without being somehow framed by doctrine first. Can't it be read first at face value?
1 hr · Like

Joshua Kenz Because that is a disturbing image
1 hr · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell A propos of nothing, did you all know that today is Hegel's birthday? Born August 27th, 1770.
1 hr · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell A ghost is haunting this thread ...
1 hr · Like · 1

Isak Benedict As usual with Peregrine, he has some interesting things to say mixed in with balderdash. I do not entirely disagree with that statement, insofar as it is quite true that the Protestant approach to Holy Scripture is "Sola," as it were, while the Catholic approach is guided by Church tradition.

That does not therefore mean that to read the Bible, say, for example, as literature, (or any other non-magisterial way) is to be a Protestant or atheist. I think there is much fruit in sometimes reading it the way one might read, say, The Iliad. As long as one does not do so exclusively. Does that make sense, Jody? I'm sort of thinking as I go here.
1 hr · Like

Isak Benedict Daniel - WHOA. I feel suddenly weird.
1 hr · Like · 1

Pater Edmund I find the "There's no personal God in Aristotle" cliché tiresome. What to be people really mean by that? If what they mean is that Aristotle did not have a concept of the person then it's just obvious. But notice that they never say "Aristotle does not think that human beings are persons," which is just as obvious is that sense. But if they mean that Aristotle denies something essential to the person of God, then it's demonstrably false, as the opposite is true.

I don't find it surprising that Matthew J. Peterson takes up this vacuous cliché, since it gives him ammunition for his war on "TAC's idea of an anhistorial Aristotlethomas," but I'm slightly surprised that you take up the cliché Samantha since Caleb is so good at exploding similarly vacuous clichés about Aristotle's teaching on the soul.

FWIW Frederick Copleston gives exactly the same argument as Big Angry Daniel and Edward Langley above:

1 hr · Edited · Unlike · 7

Daniel P. O'Connell Wasn't the question of a personal god in Aristotle a question that only arose later, in Neoplatonism and then with the Arabs? It was fundamentally a question of what sort of CAUSES his god knows. THAT he knows is manifest.
1 hr · Like · 1

John Ruplinger I believe Matthew affirmed what Daniel and Edward said, later. I should say conceded.
58 mins · Edited · Like

Edward Langley Yeah, Pater, as I see it there are two ways to approach the question: historically by asking "did Aristotle think God is a person" and philosophically "did Aristotle attribute to God the characteristics of a person".

Historically the question is trivial, since the philosophical/theological notion of "person" arose with the attempts to model the Trinity.

Philosophically, the question is "is the definition of person, 'individua substantia rationalis naturae' applicable to the God Aristotle describes. I think it is and it is trivial to show this: rational here just means "having an intellect". Aristotle's God has an intellect and is a substance. Q.E.D.

What's more difficult (and impossible) is for Aristotle to determine how many individual substances God is. But even there, Aristotle has some hint of the truth: doesn't St. Thomas quote Aristotle's De Caelo as having some threeness.

Obviously all the implications of being a person aren't explicit in Aristotle, but that's immaterial.
57 mins · Edited · Like · 2

Edward Langley Also, LONG LIVE ARISTOTHOMAS
54 mins · Like · 1

Edward Langley Or is it Aquinotle?
53 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell This is all backwards. The question of person-hood in God or gods (historically) has nothing to do with the Trinity. It's a question about God's relation to people.
52 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell So, e.g., we assert God's personhood as the God of Abraham.
52 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell The God who spoke to Moses from the bush.
52 mins · Like

Katherine Gardner God definitely thought Aristotle was a person.
52 mins · Unlike · 3

Katherine Gardner @Edward
52 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Aristotle's god doesn't do this sort of thing.
52 mins · Like

Edward Langley That's a different sense of "personal"
51 mins · Like

Edward Langley (I was going to note that, but thought my intention was obvious)
51 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell No, it's not. You and Copleston are treating this in far to pat a manner.
50 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell As I alluded to above, the question is about what sort of causes god understands.
50 mins · Like

Edward Langley Also, I've heard a passage in the Eudemian Ethics cited where Aristotle claims that when an ignorant man performs a virtuous action, he was inspired by the first cause. But I've never been able to find such a passage.
50 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Does god understand universal causes only? If so, then he / she is in no sense a personal god.
49 mins · Like

Edward Langley I took Daniel Lendman's claim to be "Aristotle knew that God is a person but not that God was three persons". Matthew J. Peterson asked for evidence and several of us responded in various ways.
49 mins · Edited · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell If, however, god understands e.g., what makes me want to go to Burger King at 1 am, then god is a personal god.
49 mins · Like

Edward Langley On the question of God's knowledge, I say read Thomas DeKoninck's article in the Review of Metaphysics.
48 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell You should engage with the claim I'm making, and not tell me to go read an article I've long ago read.
47 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell This is very much a problem of Neoplatonic philosophy and Arabic philosophy, the two parts of philosophical history that TAC casts a blind eye upon.
47 mins · Like

John Ruplinger personal is from person: an individual intellectual substance [ that can be personable or standoffish]
46 mins · Like

Edward Langley I'm saying that you're argument is incidental to the sense we're using "personal" here.

I grant that it's hard to determine what Aristotle thinks God knows and thus it's hard to determine if Aristotle's God is a "personal" God in the sense you're using, but I reiterate, no one besides you is thinking of "personal" in that way.
45 mins · Like

Edward Langley If you want to insist that "personal" doesn't bear these two senses, I'm not sure how to proceed
45 mins · Like

Isak Benedict "And in this corner..."
44 mins · Like · 1

Edward Langley I was avoiding saying that "Aristotle knew that God is a person" because that could imply that Aristotle knew that God is _one_ person, which would be false.
44 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell But isn't Copleston just blowing smoke ... ? Secudum rem ... ? That doesn't persuade me.
43 mins · Like

Edward Langley Coppleston is saying that "God is (one or more) individual substances having a rational nature"
42 mins · Like

Edward Langley But, rereading, I won't defend Coppleston: (a) because I don't like his style and (b) because I'm not sure I have enough context to judge his claims.
41 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell God's nature is beyond reason ... all three of the monotheistic traditions affirm this. ... anyway, what I'm trying to say, is that it's too pat to simply assert Boethius' definition of personhood and then look back to Aristotle and say his god (a thinking of thinking!) was a person.
41 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Fair enough.
41 mins · Like

Edward Langley Katherine Gardner, just noticed what the intent of your comment was. 
40 mins · Like · 1

Edward Langley The implication you're drawing, Daniel, sounds like it would rule out anything besides negative theology. As a Thomist and a Catholic, I'd disagree.
39 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell I would claim that it's Augustinus (and probably earlier fathers) who claim personhood (i.e.: knowledge of all causes, universal and particular) for God. I'll stick with Augustine, as he's the one I know best: it's in his refutation of Cicero's argument against divine foreknowledge in City of God that he claims God knows all causes (necessary and free, particular and universal).
38 mins · Like

Edward Langley What do you think of the Dionysian superessential predication?
38 mins · Edited · Like · 1

Edward Langley (or whatever it's called)
37 mins · Like

Joshua Kenz I just realized James Layne hasn't been made one with the Thread
36 mins · Edited · Like · 2

Edward Langley (Also, Rye and typing don't mix verry weelll_
36 mins · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell You're a rye man ... see, I can trust you ...
35 mins · Unlike · 1

Tim Cantu This is my thread. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My thread is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My thread, without me, is useless. Without my thread, I am useless. I must fire my thread true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...
My thread and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...
My thread is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my thread clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before God, I swear this creed. My thread and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!
34 mins · Like · 1

JA Escalante Aristotle seems to think that God doesn't know particulars directly, but a lot would depend on what God's relation to the gods is, since they do (vide Bodeus); and if the gods are somehow God, then He does in a way know particulars
34 mins · Like · 1

Tim Cantu it doesn't translate perfectly but it's pretty good.
33 mins · Like

JA Escalante but there's a lot of equivocation going on here, and Daniel can get crankypants about this topic
32 mins · Like

Edward Langley Although if Aristotelian philosophy implies that God is infinitely perfect, then he would be a principle of knowing all creatures and thus, in his self-knowledge, he would know all creatures.
32 mins · Like

JA Escalante God of course directly sees Dan's crankypantsness
32 mins · Like · 2

Edward Langley (and I realise that today's scholarship would deny infinite perfection of Aristotle's God)
32 mins · Like

Edward Langley But they seem to be largely caught up in words.
31 mins · Like

JA Escalante Edward, there are several steps missing there, and that's a somewhat Thomistified reading of Aristotle. In case Pater Edmund is right, Aristotle's God is most definitely Mind and "substance", and thus "personal" in the philosophic sense
30 mins · Like · 1

Edward Langley I realize that, but I happen to think that Thomas gets Aristotle right 99% of the time.
30 mins · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell With friends like JA! ... not to dodge the question on Dionysius, but at bottom I'm more interested in an ethnological (and at the same time religious) concept of personhood. It's realized by Abraham in God's promise of Isaac (and subsequent command for sacrifice and salvation), it's realized by the Apostles in the Transfiguration or, at the very latest, at Pentecost, and it's realized by Muhammad in the revelation of the Qur'an by the angel Gabriel. Prescinding from the question of the truth or falsity of those experiences for a moment, THAT is a PERSONAL God (in the thick sense!).
29 mins · Like

Pater Edmund Daniel P. O'Connell your PERSONAL is way too THICK. You write "personhood (i.e.: knowledge of all causes, universal and particular)" according that definition I am not a person.
28 mins · Unlike · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell No. You mistake my meaning Pater.
27 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell I'm applying that to God's knowledge.
27 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell For God to be personal in this sense, he has to have chosen you, knit you together in your mother's womb.
26 mins · Like

Pater Edmund I was just trolling you.
26 mins · Like · 2

JA Escalante to be fair Dan is just saying that is what *divine* personhood would entail given what person is in the stipulated sense, and what God is
26 mins · Like · 1

Isak Benedict Where is John Brungardt in all this?
26 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell Pater, you got me!
26 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell Maybe JA is right ... I am getting a bit crankypants, which sounds like something Nina Gapinski would say ...
25 mins · Like · 1

JA Escalante but Dan the question of revelation isn't that simple a criterion. The Greeks had oracles, and those oracles were of the gods, and if the gods are somehow God (emanations, whatever), then its mediated revelation, but still somehow God talking to men; a lot like the Vodoun distinction between the lwa (who talk to us) and Bondye (who doesn't directly), but the lwa *are* Bondye in refraction; I think Aristotle thinks something like this, more or less
23 mins · Edited · Like · 1

James Layne I'm viewing on my phone and something must be wrong here! I keep clicking "view previous comments," but there is no end (or maybe it's malfunctioning). What the hell happened?  This will make good reading tomorrow. Thanks for notifying me, Joshua Kenz.
23 mins · Like · 2

Daniel P. O'Connell I'm not sure ... in this case, however, what are we to make of the rather strong anti-personal nature of Plato's gods? As Plato tells it, at least, through Socrates, when the gods are like Zeus and Hera, this just leads us into absurdities. The poets lie.
20 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell (although I like your Vodoun analogy)
19 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell Plato's gods act by the necessity of nature, despite what Timaeus says.
18 mins · Like

JA Escalante Dan unlike you I am not a member of the Neoplatonic religion, and thus I have no magisterial doctrine of Aristotelian-Platonic harmonia binding upon me
18 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell 
18 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell I think if the world is eternal (which is at least the supposition in Physics VIII), then you need a first mover (a thinking of thinking) who never changes.
17 mins · Like

John Ruplinger could the gods be bad? Homer seems to show them so ( except maybe Poseiden)
17 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell I guess you could have lower, planetary intelligences who are "personal" in some sense. Interacting with us in some way ...
16 mins · Like

JA Escalante knowing particulars does not necessitate or imply change, btw
16 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell True. As Augustine shows in his City of God.
16 mins · Like

Joshua Kenz Hold on....are you implying if the world is not eternal, you can have a first mover that changes?
15 mins · Like · 1

John Ruplinger What did St Augustine think about the gods?
14 mins · Edited · Like

JA Escalante get 'im, Joshua!
14 mins · Like · 1

Daniel P. O'Connell LOL.
14 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell You COULD ... but you need not. The world's eternality requires a god who never changes, but a world which begins in time (it seems to me) could have a changeable or an unchangeable source.
13 mins · Like

JA Escalante ^!!!!!!
13 mins · Like

John Ruplinger Who excorcized the Pythian oracle?
11 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell I mean, Thomas' God or Lucretius' "swerve" ... both are consistent with a world that begins.
11 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Maimonides would back me up here I think.
11 mins · Like

Joshua Kenz What?!!! Are you saying that, as far as the evidence the world gives, God could be changeable? Or that it could have a source other than God?

It seems to me that while there is a particular argument based on a supposed eternity of the world (cf the "5 Ways" in the Summa contra gentiles, particularly the second), every argument for God ends with his unchangeability
11 mins · Like

Joshua Kenz (by ends I means leads to, not as if it is the final end of reasoning). Changeable things need an unchangeable source, all the more so if the world is not eternal
10 mins · Like · 1

John Ruplinger What did Croesus' test of all the famous oracles show about their knowledge?
9 mins · Like

Joshua Kenz But Lucretius' swerve is not the origin of the universe, even in Lucretiu
9 mins · Like

Daniel P. O'Connell Why? I mean, I don't want to get into defending Lucretius here ... I never much cared for his poetry, but doesn't his changeable world have a changeable (i.e., random, chance-based) source?
9 mins · Like

Joshua Kenz The swerve is not the source of the world. It is the source of things not determined (free will e.g.)
8 mins · Like