First figure in this instance seems perfectly accurate. This is a
Barbara syllogism of the first figure.
Stephen
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Donald Jacob Uitvlugt wrote:
> Dear list members,
>
> Thank you for your help so far. Some further context for my quesetion:
>
> The phrase _in prima figura_ is used a few times in a passage of Robert
> Bellarmine's De Controversiis that I have have been working on. In this
> passage, Bellarmine is answering Protestant objections to the Catholic
> understanding of the Eucharist. Peter Martyr has brought up a series of
> _reductiones ad absurdum_, one of which reads:
>
> Tertium [argumentum] est in prima figura: "Omne Christi corpus, vel
> quidquid est Christi corpus, est in coelo. Sed Sacramentum Eucharistiae
> est Christi corpus, ergo Sacramentum Eucharistiae est in coelo."
>
> Bellarmine's "solution" to this objection reads:
>
> Tertium argumentum est quidem in prima figura si accipiatur corpus Christi
> pro corpore Christi naturali, et mystico, sed tunc est falsa propositio:
> "Omne corpus Christi est in coelo". Nam Ecclesia millitans est corpus
> Christi, et non in coelo. Si vero accipiatur corpus Christi pro solo
> naturali corpore tunc vera est propositio, sed non est universalis, neque
> argumentum esse potest in prima figura. Non enim propositio est
> universalis, si signum illud (Omne) addatur ad terminum singularem; idem
> enim est: Petrus, et, Omnis Petrus, si de uno tantum loquaris. Praeterea
> etiam assumptio est falsa. Non enim sacramentum Eucharistiae est corpus
> Christi, sed continet corpus Christi: sacramentum enim est signum sensibile.
>
> The way Bellarmine uses the phrase in these passages suggests to me that
> _in prima figura_ is a logical term, not referring to an illustration
> (since, to the best of my knowledge, the De Controversiis was never
> illustrated).
>
> Thank you again for your help. And my apologies for stretching the
> boundaries of the list.
>
> Donald Uitvlugt
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|