Natural law and Marriage
#1
Are natural marriages indissoluble?  If so, then is the indissolubility of Marriage rooted in the Natural Law?    what are the reasons then?  Please help me out.

 
Reply
#2
Natural marriages are indisolluble. It used to be that vows made in private were considered legitimate. The reason that we haev to get married in a church is becasue of the Council of Trent and the confussion with making these types of vows. A person makes these types of vows with one person. After a year or so gets tired of her/him, goes into the next town where nobody knows them, and gets "married" again the same way. How to know which spouse came first? With everything recorded and documented now we know.
Reply
#3
Marriage is the only Sacrament that is administered by the recipients.

Church blessed unions are not necessary to contract a valid marriage.
Reply
#4
Here's what I've heard from a priest: the promises of love, when one is in love, are always directed to eternity; one cannot think of ending love when one actually loves.
I guess this have something to do with the boundlessness of virtue: a thing can be bounded by something that is not it, but the good cannot be bounded by evil because evil has no being. That's why there's no sense in speaking of, to get the more extreme and clearer example, the Father loving the Son just that much and no more.

Not exactly Thomistic natural law stuff. But then again, I don't really care much for that.  :grin:
Reply
#5
(11-14-2014, 05:26 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Here's what I've heard from a priest: the promises of love, when one is in love, are always directed to eternity; one cannot think of ending love when one actually loves.
Thomistically speaking; that may be so, but if so why and how.
Quote: I guess this have something to do with the boundlessness of virtue: a thing can be bounded by something that is not it, but the good cannot be bounded by evil because evil has no being. That's why there's no sense in speaking of, to get the more extreme and clearer example, the Father loving the Son just that much and no more.

Not exactly Thomistic natural law stuff. But then again, I don't really care much for that.  :grin:
Again Thomistically speaking; evil is but the lack (or negation) of some good.

I do care for that stuff. It's the only thing that makes any sense if you don't think your subjective opinion = reality.
Reply
#6
(11-14-2014, 07:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: Thomistically speaking; that may be so, but if so why and how.

I'm not using a particularly Thomistic scheme when I say this. The “why” is given (speculated, rather) on the following paragraph. Don't you read?  :eyeroll:

(11-14-2014, 07:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: I do care for that stuff. It's the only thing that makes any sense if you don't think your subjective opinion = reality.

So basically the only kind of philosophy there is is Thomism? To paraphrase God: “Where was Thomas when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, surely he has understanding”.
Talk about idolatry!
Reply
#7
(11-14-2014, 07:37 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(11-14-2014, 07:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: Thomistically speaking; that may be so, but if so why and how.

I'm not using a particularly Thomistic scheme when I say this. The “why” is given (speculated, rather) on the following paragraph. Don't you read?  :eyeroll:

(11-14-2014, 07:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: I do care for that stuff. It's the only thing that makes any sense if you don't think your subjective opinion = reality.

So basically the only kind of philosophy there is is Thomism? To paraphrase God: “Where was Thomas when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, surely he has understanding”.
Talk about idolatry!
  :grin:
I did read the following paragraph and didn't see anything in it to take particular exception to so I just flew over it.

There is only one philosophy. The science of gaining knowledge and understanding of reality. The Scholastic Method just happens to be the best yet for sorting wheat from chaff... for sorting realistic observations and deductions from fantastic egotistical daydreams.

Philosophy is the queen of sciences, but much of what is sold as philosophy these days is nothing but the egomaniacal speculations of God-haters.
Reply
#8
(11-15-2014, 06:29 AM)Oldavid Wrote:
(11-14-2014, 07:37 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(11-14-2014, 07:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: Thomistically speaking; that may be so, but if so why and how.

I'm not using a particularly Thomistic scheme when I say this. The “why” is given (speculated, rather) on the following paragraph. Don't you read?  :eyeroll:

(11-14-2014, 07:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: I do care for that stuff. It's the only thing that makes any sense if you don't think your subjective opinion = reality.

So basically the only kind of philosophy there is is Thomism? To paraphrase God: “Where was Thomas when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, surely he has understanding”.
Talk about idolatry!
  :grin:
I did read the following paragraph and didn't see anything in it to take particular exception to so I just flew over it.

There is only one philosophy. The science of gaining knowledge and understanding of reality. The Scholastic Method just happens to be the best yet for sorting wheat from chaff... for sorting realistic observations and deductions from fantastic egotistical daydreams.

Philosophy is the queen of sciences, but much of what is sold as philosophy these days is nothing but the egomaniacal speculations of God-haters.

Of course there's not only one philosophy. Even within Scholasticism you have your variations: you have your Thomas, Scotus, Bonaventure, Suarez, etc.
Philosophy presupposes that you are not wise: you love wisdom but you don't actually posses it. This variation is inevitable, I think; it only reflects our finitude. And they are not simple disagreements generated by one philosopher vanities --like is the case with modern philosophy-- but are real difficulties in understanding reality.

And of course, when I said I don't really care if my explanation fits Thomistic natural law I'm not saying I'm for modern philosophy. I might actually prefer something classical, something from Plato and S. Augustine rather than Aristotle and S. Thomas.
Reply
#9
It's worth considering that, as far as I know, St. Thomas never sets out to develop an autonomous philosophy based on reason alone. Indeed, scholars such as Rudi te Velde have pointed out that even the "proofs for the existence of God," often treated by neo-scholastics as purely logical and irrefutable demonstrations of the fact that an object called God exists out there somewhere, are in fact very much inflected with Christian assumptions about God and His relationship with creation. The same is true of the natural law, which Thomas never proposed as some self-contained, secular doctrine that could be used to convince unbelievers of various points of a revolutionary and Jacobin morality, which of course is how Catholic apologists use the idea today.

In the end, I think we need to be careful to distinguish St. Thomas himself from the later ideas, such as that of a natura pura, often considered to have been introduced by people like Cajetan or Suarez and from the Wolffian rationalism adopted by many scholastics after the seventeenth century.
Reply
#10
I think there is a great distinction to be made between the actual "stuff" of philosophy and the various fashions and schools that erupt or evolve around it. There is a tendency among us people trying to aggrandise ourselves to engage in sophistry and call it philosophy. The Scholastic Method was much discredited with vain, specious, silly, pompous arguments of the calibre of "how many angels can sit on the head of a pin".

If we define philosophy as one very erudite philosopher defined it for me as: "The search for knowledge and understanding of reality using a scientific instrument called logic" it narrows the field to its roots so that not just any lame-brained fancy can truly be called "philosophy".

Take the average adolescent who's mind must be on the verge of imploding with the vacuity of the slogans it is "filled" with... they'll say, as if it is a perfect legitimiser for nonsense, "well my philosophy is..."

The link that Geremia provided in another thread to Patrick McCloskey's "The Science of Logic" is, as far as I've read it, a very good apologetic for genuine philosophy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)