No, Dei Filius is NOT About Apologetics, It's About the Revelation that Apologetics is Meant to Defend

New blog on the kid: Christian Wagner Might Not Appreciate Me Being Into Apologetics? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: No, Dei Filius is NOT About Apologetics, It's About the Revelation that Apologetics is Meant to Defend · I Note, Alex O'Connor Didn't Mention Looking Into Geocentrism

0:29 The assertion that Dei Filius is actually about Apologetics is, to my immediate suspicion and first check (F-search "apol" on the Latin document on the va site), as unsupported as Providentissimus Deus being about the Galileo affair.

Scholastic Answers

@MilitantThomist

lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@MilitantThomist enjoy the chuckle, you may need it ...

MarvAlice

@marvalice3455

"I used control f and didn't find a word therefore you are wrong"

The fact that you are comfortable using this argument is going to color everything else I ever see from you. There is nothing you are going to be able to bring up where "but he thought he could word search a document and it would be a valid argument" is not going to be a serious concern

Caleb Adcock

@calebadcock363

“It doesn’t use a specific word, therefore it’s not about that topic”

That is abominable logic

Syed Hasan Ahmed (Hasan)

@syedhasanahmed3514

It just means that you dont know the definition of the tract on apologetics in our traditional books

Justinus

@-Justinus-

Providentissimus Deus does obliquely answer the Galileo Affair in one part tho...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@-Justinus- Key word: obliquely.

So very obliquely it doesn't even specify which way.

Caleb and Marv, did you notice my wording "first check" ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@syedhasanahmed3514 Which one of your "traditional books" gives a "definition" of "the tract on apologetics"?

Either you are citing one specific book, more probably a recent trad book than a traditional book, and mistaking it for THE traditional definition ... or you are simply making up words.

Syed Hasan Ahmed (Hasan)

@hglundahl literally any book on 'de revelatione' for example. Have you looked at any of the manuals?

Idk why you have to be so rude and intentionally aggressively ignorant

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@syedhasanahmed3514 I'm not in a seminary study, so, no, not that type of manuals.

EXCEPT one on OT theology, by Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux.

Those are not the kind of works that normal Catholic laymen are supposed to know. Including as far as I know when doing Apologetics, since that is NOT an office pertaining to the sole priesthood.

In Islam, that's different, your former religion has no sacraments or sacerdotal sacrifice (correct me if I'm wrong, but any male is sacrificing animals for certain feasts, not just clergy) and clergy are mainly intellectuals. In Catholic Christianity, the layman is not required or normally expected to be deep in theology or do apologetics, but some do.

My own traditional is St. Thomas or St. Augustine, to name the two I consult most often.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@-Justinus- While Hasan is getting over (if ever) that I don't share Muslim concepts of respect, culturally (I know he converted theologically), let me expand.

I suppose you mean this sentence:

Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

It can be construed as referring to "Scripture uses Geocentric description, because that's how it appears, doesn't mean this is meant to fathom the actual physical fact."

First, the actual physical fact is only a "secret of nature" if Heliocentrism is true. If Geocentrism is true, the actual physical fact is instead obvious.

Second, the reference in Aquinas is about a Church Father explaining why Moses didn't describe the crystalline spheres which on Aristotelic theory were there.

THIRD .... it turns out that by going by what appears sensibly on that issue (no crystalline spheres appear) Moses was siding with actual physical fact, since Tycho Brahe disproved crystalline spheres.

In other words, the support for the interpretation I put into quotes, and which certainly represents the interpretation of the Olivieri* school in France, is just so oblique it can be completely turned around and it fits the Thomistic reference better.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@syedhasanahmed3514 You are aware that an appeal to manuals from a few decades is NOT a valid appeal to tradition, NOR to universal ordinary magisterium of those decades, since many dioceses may have used older manuals or preferred an older book over the manual on a given question?

So, for instance, appealing to manuals between 1880's and Ludwig Ott is not a valid way to prove that Biblical chronological information can't be taken to indicate a chronology.

The bigger the manual, the more probable it is it will include things the author and those approving it think are helpful even if they are not dogmatic.

They don't have more authority because they are for priests, they have less authority than things Popes and Councils have directed to the large public, like Encyclicals, Bulls, Constitutions.

* Assumptionist Father Olivieri who was provincial head in France interpreted the 1820 and 1822 decisions as if everyone was now allowed to actually believe Heliocentrism is true.