what's the deal with vampire related stuff
#41
(11-25-2009, 01:20 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(11-25-2009, 01:03 AM)DrBombay Wrote: I hate vampire movies.  Bunch of actors in plastic teeth hissing at people.  Vacuous nonsense.

St. Thomas also denied the Immaculate Conception so.....yea....for what that's worth.....

He's also a Doctor of the Church.  Plus, there is hardly a consensus about his position on the Immaculate Conception.

He denied it clearly.  Riight there in the Summa.  It had to do with the infusion of a rational soul.  He did say that Mary was born without sin, however. 
Reply
#42
(11-25-2009, 01:39 AM)DrBombay Wrote:
(11-25-2009, 01:20 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(11-25-2009, 01:03 AM)DrBombay Wrote: St. Thomas also denied the Immaculate Conception so.....yea....for what that's worth.....

He's also a Doctor of the Church.  Plus, there is hardly a consensus about his position on the Immaculate Conception.

He denied it clearly.  Riight there in the Summa.  It had to do with the infusion of a rational soul.  He did say that Mary was born without sin, however. 

Yes, but there is no definitive denial.  He asserts she was born without sin, was sanctified in the womb, and never committed actual sin.  He also expresses the opinion that she was preserved, to some extent, from the effects of Original Sin.  Pars Teria, Question 27, Article 3 is the article in question, where St. Thomas takes on this issue.  He hesitates to make a full-on commitment to belief in the Immaculate Conception because he fears this may diminish the redemptive work of Christ, since it seemed unfitting to him that anyone could be freed of the condemnation of Original Sin prior to the Incarnation.  However, he is far from making a definitive denial of Immaculate Conception.  You can see that he is trying to work out the problem, given what he knows to be revealed by the Church (of course, he did not enjoy the privilege of witnessing the solemn definition by the Church centuries later).  He opines that full preservation from the stain of Original Sin seems unfitting, but he uses language that doesn't absolutely commit himself to this opinion.  He essentially lays out all the arguments necessary to deduce the Immaculate Conception, but it appears he was unable to figure out that Mary could be preserved from all stain of Original Sin while at the same time receiving this privilege through the merits of her yet-to-be-incarnate Son.  Still, I think he leaves openings to its possibility.  He certainly affords her every privilege and benefit of the doubt he possibly can, given the infallible teachings of the Church on the subject of Mary up to that point.

And from his arguments below, it's not difficult to come to the conclusion that he believed in the possibility of the Immaculate Conception, despite the fact he may not have explicitly articulated it.  The dogma, itself, is very specific in what it defines, after all.

From Pars Tertia, Question 27: Article 4:
"I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: '(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.' Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): 'Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,' etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: 'The glory of children are their fathers': and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): 'What concord hath Christ with Belial?' Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the 'Divine Wisdom' (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): 'Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.'
Reply
#43
(11-23-2009, 09:41 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Indeed ros. The movie was ok. 30 days of night was far far far better. The vamps in twilight seem to be sexless. Why a lass would find that attractive I dunno.
Anyhoo.

A good friend of mine calls the Twilight Vampires Fagpires.
Reply
#44
yea, vampires suck and teen girls are crazy, well the female of the specie are usually crazy, I blame the feminists and diet soda.
Reply
#45
(11-25-2009, 04:12 AM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: yea, vampires suck and teen girls are crazy, well the female of the specie are usually crazy, I blame the feminists and diet soda.

Meh, most of us were crazy long before the advent of diet soda... :P
Reply
#46
(11-25-2009, 04:12 AM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: yea, vampires suck...

Well, yes, but only when they're thirsty.
Reply
#47
we need cool retro 80s vampires like the Lost Boys to come and dance to saxophone rock music on the beach while everybody looks like hobos... that'll fix it
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)