/

Other languages square icon.svg

.
Disambig gray RTL.svg ().
, . (Franois
( : supern?t?r?lis: supra " " + natura

1
2
3
4
5

, ,
Symbol question-rtl.svg :
(
(
( , ),
( ).
Rosmini unwittingly, [may] have paved the way for them in the following vagu
ely Subjectivist proposition: The supernatural order consists in the manifestatio
n of Being in the plenitude of its reality, and the effect of that manifestation
is a God-like sentiment, inchoate in this life through the light of faith and g
race, consummate in the next through the light of glory (36th Rosminian propositi
on condemned by the Holy Office, 14 Dec., 1887). Preserving the dogmatic formul?
while voiding them of their contents, the Modernists constantly speak of the su
pernatural, but they understand thereby the advanced stages of an evolutive proc
ess of the religious sentiment. There is no room in their system for the objecti
ve and revealed supernatural: their Agnosticism declares it unknowable, their Im
manentism derives it from our own vitality, their symbolism explains it in term
of subjective experience and their criticism declares non-authentic the document
s used to prove it. There is no question now, says Pius X, in his Encyclical Pascen
di of 8 Sept., 1907, of the old error by which a sort of right to the supernatural
was claimed for human nature. We have gone far beyond that. We have reached the
point where it is affirmed that our most holy religion, in the man Christ as in
us, emanated from nature spontaneously and entirely. Than this, there is surely
nothing more destructive of the whole supernatural order.
From the commonly received axiom that grace does not destroy but only perfect
s nature they establish between the two orders a parallelism that is not mutual c
onfusion or reciprocal exclusion, but distinction and subordination. The Schoolm
en spoke freely of nature's possibilities (potentia obedientialis) and even cona
tions (appetitus naturalis) towards the supernatural. To those traditional metho
ds and views some Christian writers have, of late, endeavoured to add and even s
ubstitute another theory which, they claim, will bring the supernatural home to
the modern mind and give it unquestionable credentials. The novel theory consist
s in making nature postulate the supernatural. Whatever be the legitimity of the
purpose, the method is ambiguous and full of pitfalls. Between the Schoolmen's
potentia obedientialis and appetitus moralis and the Modernist tenet according t
o which the supernatural emanates from nature spontaneously and entirely there is
space and distance; at the same time, the Catholic apologist who would attempt t
o fill some of the space and cover some of the distance should keep in mind the
admonition of Pius X to those Catholics who, while rejecting immanence as a doctr
ine, employ it as a method of apologetics, and who do this so imprudently that t
hey seem to admit that there is in human nature a true and rigorous necessity wi
th regard to the supernatural order and not merely a capacity and suitability fo
r the supernatural such as has at all times been emphasized by Catholic apologis
ts (Encyclical Pascendi).
Joseph Sollier, The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14., Supernatural Order


It is not possible, in process metaphysics, to conceive divine activity as a
supernatural intervention into the natural order of events. Process theists usually
regard the distinction between the supernatural and the natural as a by-product
of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In process thought, there is no such thi
ng as a realm of the natural in contrast to that which is supernatural. On the o
ther hand, if the natural is defined more neutrally as what is in the nature of thi
ngs, then process metaphysics characterizes the natural as the creative activity
of actual entities. In Whitehead's words, It lies in the nature of things that th
e many enter into complex unity (Whitehead 1978, 21). It is tempting to emphasize
process theism's denial of the supernatural and thereby highlight what the proc
ess God cannot do in comparison to what the traditional God can do (that is, to
bring something from nothing). In fairness, however, equal stress should be plac
ed on process theism's denial of the natural (as traditionally conceived) so tha
t one may highlight what the creatures cannot do, in traditional theism, in comp
arison to what they can do in process metaphysics (that is, to be part creators
of the world with God).[4]
Donald">http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/process-theism/
</ref>|Donald</a> Viney|"Process Theism" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso
phy}}

""
For sometimes we use the word nature for that Author of nature whom the scho
olmen, harshly enough, call natura naturans, as when it is said that nature hath
made man partly corporeal and partly immaterial. Sometimes we mean by the natur
e of a thing the essence, or that which the schoolmen scruple not to call the qu
iddity of a thing, namely, the attribute or attributes on whose score it is what
it is, whether the thing be corporeal or not, as when we attempt to define the
nature of an angel, or of a triangle, or of a fluid body, as such. Sometimes we
take nature for an internal principle of motion, as when we say that a stone let
fall in the air is by nature carried towards the centre of the earth, and, on t
he contrary, that fire or flame does naturally move upwards toward heaven. Somet
imes we understand by nature the established course of things, as when we say th
at nature makes the night succeed the day, nature hath made respiration necessar
y to the life of men. Sometimes we take nature for an aggregate of powers belong
ing to a body, especially a living one, as when physicians say that nature is st
rong or weak or spent, or that in such or such diseases nature left to herself w
ill do the cure. Sometimes we take nature for the universe, or system of the cor
poreal works of God, as when it is said of a phoenix, or a chimera, that there i
s no such thing in nature, i.e. in the world. And sometimes too, and that most c
ommonly, we would express by nature a semi-deity or other strange kind of being,
such as this discourse examines the notion of.
And besides these more absolute acceptions, if I may so call them, of the wo
rd nature, it has divers others (more relative), as nature is wont to be set or
in opposition or contradistinction to other things, as when we say of a stone wh
en it falls downwards that it does it by a natural motion, but that if it be thr
own upwards its motion that way is violent. So chemists distinguish vitriol into
natural and fictitious, or made by art, i.e. by the intervention of human power
or skill; so it is said that water, kept suspended in a sucking pump, is not in
its natural place, as that is which is stagnant in the well. We say also that w
icked men are still in the state of nature, but the regenerate in a state of gra
ce; that cures wrought by medicines are natural operations; but the miraculous o
nes wrought by Christ and his apostles were supernatural.[5]
Robert Boyle, A Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature
" "
Parapsychologists use the term psi to refer to an assumed unitary force unde
rlying the phenomena they study. Psi is defined in the Journal of Parapsychology
as a general term used to identify personal factors or processes in nature which
transcend accepted laws (1948: 311) and which are non-physical in nature (1962:310
), and it is used to cover both extrasensory perception (ESP), an awareness of or
response to an external event or influence not apprehended by sensory means (196
2:309) or inferred from sensory knowledge, and psychokinesis (PK), the direct inf
luence exerted on a physical system by a subject without any known intermediate
energy or instrumentation (1945:305).[7]
Michael Winkelman, Current Anthropology

" " :
.
.
oogle.com/books?id=-UjiZwYGdFoC&pg=PA413</a> Origins of the Social Mind: Evoluti
onary Psychology and Child Development]. Guilford Publications. 413. ISBN 978159385
1033.</ref>

^ [<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural?s=t">http://
dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural?s=t</a> Etymology from Dictionary.c
om]
^ [<a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=supernatural&allowed_in
_frame=0">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=supernatural&allowed_in_frame
=0</a> Etymology on-line]
Sollier, Joseph (1912). [<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm
">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm</a> "Supernatural Order"]. The Cath
olic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 15 September 201
1.
^ Viney Donald (2008). [<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/e
ntries/process-theism/ "Process Theism"]. In Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyc
lopedia of Philosophy ( Winter 2008).
^ Boyle Robert Stewart M.A. (1991). [<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=
_tNzGMLGSGwC&pg=PA177">http://books.google.com/books?id=_tNzGMLGSGwC&pg=PA177</a
> Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle]. Hackett. ISBN 978-0-87220-122-
4.
^ [<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=znMqAQAAIAAJ&q=%22supernatural+
beliefs%22+%22paranormal%22&dq=%22supernatural+beliefs%22+%22paranormal%22&hl=en
&ei=SdpNTMioFoeglAeH97D5DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwA
g">http://books.google.com/books?id=znMqAQAAIAAJ&q=%22supernatural+beliefs%22+%2
2paranormal%22&dq=%22supernatural+beliefs%22+%22paranormal%22&hl=en&ei=SdpNTMioF
oeglAeH97D5DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg</a> The par
anormal Google Books]. Books.google.com. July 26, 2010.
^ Winkelman, M.; et.al. (February 1982). "Magic: A Theoretical Reassessment
[and Comments and Replies]". Current Anthropology 23 (1): 3766. JSTOR 274255.
^ Zhong Yang Yan Jiu Yuan Min Tsu Hseh Yen Chiu So (1976). [<a href="http://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=yyQZAAAAIAAJ Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Aca
demia Sinica, Issues 42-44].
[]




:

PDF

Afrikaans
Alemannisch
Az?rbaycanca
Boarisch
??????????
?????????? (???????????)
?????????
?????
Bosanski
Catal

?e?tina
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
????????
English
Esperanto
Espa?ol
Eesti
Euskara

Suomi
V?ro
Franais
Frysk
??
Galego
?????
??????
Hrvatski
Magyar
???????
Interlingua
Bahasa Indonesia
Ido
?slenska
Italiano
???
Basa Jawa
???????
???
Kurd
????????
Latina
Ltzebuergesch
Lietuvi?
Latvie?u
??????????
??????
??????
Bahasa Melayu
Mirands
Plattdtsch
??????
????? ????
Nederlands
Norsk nynorsk
Norsk bokm?l
Occitan
??????
Polski
Portugus
Romn?
???????
??????????
?????????
???? ????
Sicilianu
Srpskohrvatski / ??????????????
Simple English
Sloven?ina
Sloven??ina
Shqip
?????? / srpski
Svenska
?????
???
Tagalog
Trke
??????????

O?zbekcha
Ti?ng Vi?t
Volapk
Winaray
??????
??
??
Bn-lm-g?
??

: - 3.0. .





Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki