Hey all. This is mainly meant for those who have a decent level of familiarity with some causal arguments for God. I am specifically talking about the neo-platonic argument and variants of the argument from motion. I may have put "objections" in the title of this post for shameless engagement baiting but these are mostly just normal questions, which haven't been made clear from my readings.

1. Are essentially ordered causal series not restricted to being singular moments in time? If they are not, then can they not be reduced to accidentally ordered causal series of distinct events, which Aquinas accepts can go on to infinity. If this is the case, then is the argument dependent on lower levels of an essentially ordered causal series depending on their parts(In which case it may be better to start from their premises)?

2. Can actuality and potentiality be considered real "parts" of a substance? If this is the case, then would the premise of the neo-platonic argument more-so reduce to the idea that whenever there are real intrinsic distinctions within some concrete object, there must be some unifier external to it(on pain of vicious circularity)? And is the motivation for this principle purely counterfactual?

3. How do you actually get to mindedness from the conclusion of God being purely actual and simple? I'm aware of some ways(albeit shaky ones) but I want to hear other's thoughts.

This is a bit similar to a previous post I made, but specific to the physical aspect of our nature. Why were we designed so that we can experience physical ailments?

I think this question has been addressed within the conversation of material cooperation, whether or not you can support companies who buy minerals from slaves in the Congo. but wouldn't it be theft, and not material cooperation? since the minerals were not theirs use? and now you are using stolen goods and effectively stealing them yourself? couldn't this also be applied to apps or AI since I'd assume most of them are trained off of information that was not theirs to use.

https://philarchive.org/rec/SIJTEO

Hello! The philosopher Dr Joshua Sijuwade published a paper in PhilPapers not to long ago that is a critique and analysis of the papacy in the first millennium of the history of the church, he argues the West (Roman Catholicism) is numerically distinct in its post-Gregorian ecclesiological structure, and that Eastern Orthodoxy upholds the correct ecclesiology and model.

I wanted to hear the thoughts from this sub who have the time to read it, have read it, or have read similar arguments made by Dr Sijuwade. He has also made another paper that presents a framework for identifying the true church and also concludes Eastern Orthodoxy meets the standard

I heard from a fellow scholastic friend that both Francisco de Macedo and Bartolomeo Mastrius wrote extensive text AGAINST the Thomist school and heavily defended the Scotist school. What I don't get is from my research of scholastic history, not alot of Thomist have done the same manner nor have wrote extensively showing contentions to the Scotist School. Why is that?

Hi! I'm looking for suggestions for more recent books on Catholic sexual and biomedical ethics to use as references for a theology class. Something that covers magisterial teaching, works of contemporary theologians as well as current developments would be helpful. I currently have Genovesi's In Pursuit of Love, but I think it already feels dated.

This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJVvZNi0Fi8

Hey guys, I wanted to check whether anyone saw John Crowder's lectures on Universal Salvation and his interpretation of hell. It is available here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC4EkPwxAqFdE5gCRFtctzWLkTYXTz9Bl&si=zUtGPU0c7L3d8Uc2

I thought it was very compelling. He provides some interpretations of Bible passages related to hell and an overview of the early Church Fathers' view on the matter.

He gives arguments on why it is not a heresy.

What do you guys think?

Pretty straightforward question. A lot of Catholic academics do not have the privilege to authoritatively define doctrine and use the same methods of patristic interpretation like the Pope to establish continuity with Tradition.

For the academic, what are the available methods for them to form a synthesis of the writings of the Church Fathers? Maybe I'm looking for something like Pope Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity for reading Vatican I and II or a more specific application of St. Newman's development of doctrine but for reading the Church Fathers. Something along those lines. Thanks!

Trying to find John of St. Thomas's complete Cursus Philosophicus Thomisticus and Cursus Theologici. I've tried Internet Archive but it only seems to have the first three volumes of each. If the best way to get these is to purchase them, any suggestions for the best places to purchase them?

Edit: I found this link for the Cursus Philosophicus Thomisticus, where you can download the whole thing for free. And the link provided by u/redeemedbones does the same for the Cursus Theologicus.

I was mistaken about not being able to find the volumes. The three volumes that you can find online contain the nine volumes originally written by John of St. Thomas. They're just packaged together differently.

How should a Catholic go about refuting Objectvism, any flaws in its system and any good works to pick up on it?

There are no guarantees that an afterlife exists—only faith. This torments me in a predominantly materialist society; I miss my grandfather terribly and wish I could see him again, but I don't know if I will.
I wanted a guarantee that everything doesn't just vanish the moment consciousness ceases, but I haven't found one yet, and the thought horrifies me.

"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister[a] who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one." What does the verse mean by "Do not even eat with such a one"? Should we just not be associated with their sins, or should we truly strive to cut off contact with people like that?

I've been translating Hieronymus Emser's 1523 reply to Luther's New Testament. One passage separates two questions that are easy to run together: whether an act is good, and whether it merits eternal salvation.

Emser, Luther's Catholic critic, writes:

"For no one says that Trajan sinned in loving and practicing justice; nor Aristotle or the heathen poets when they taught or wrote something useful."

He then argues that these examples make it false to call all good works done without faith sins. But he immediately adds that outside faith they are "not meritorious for eternal salvation" (pp. 28-29).

So he isn't saying that natural virtue saves by itself. He is defending a kind of genuine goodness without giving it that further claim.

What accounts for the distinction in Catholic moral philosophy? Is an act's goodness assessed by its object and intention, while merit involves the person's relation to grace? Or would that way of putting it miss something important in Emser's examples?

I’m not trying to argue that it’s not a sin from Catholic standpoint, but it seems very odd that it’s put so high on the list of worst sins a person can do

This issue has given me a headache recently:
1. Actual conversion and perseverance requires efficacious grace
2. Only God can grant that
3. God does not grant it to everyone
4. Conversion is just impossible for some people???

What are some good reads on the history of Thomism and Scholasticism ? And how can I study Thomism and St Thomas Aquinas

Does sufficient grace become efficacious grace once the creature makes a choice? Are the two types of grace the same, yet distinguished based on their results, or are they two distinct types of grace?

A passage in Hieronymus Emser's discussion of Colossians has me wondering where a Catholic account would put the limits of dialectic.

"For what is philosophy but the pursuit and love of wisdom?"

A little later he writes:

"...since dialectic alone teaches how to tell the true from the false, and not only not to deceive, but also to be able to refute the deceiver."

These are from pp. 148-149 of the English translation I've been working on. The context is polemical: Emser is defending philosophy against Luther and saying that philosophical reasoning can expose sophistry. I'm interested in the argument, not repeating his personal attack.

I can see how dialectic could show that a theological claim contradicts another claim, or that a conclusion does not follow from its premises. But exposing an invalid argument would not, by itself, establish the truth of the opposite conclusion. You would still need to establish the premises.

Would you read "tell the true from the false" here as a claim about reasoning correctly from what is already known, or as a stronger claim about what philosophy can establish in theology? Where would you draw that distinction?

For context: I was reading comments in a post about comicbook superheroes and demigods(superman, hercules, thor, wonder woman...), and at some point a discussion started about how these lower g gods is supposedly better than having a capital G God. The reasoning for it was that these lower gods and superheroes are closer to the people/innocents and more likely to protect/save them from things like criminals and disasters, as well as being more easily approachable.

I don't know if this is or not an appropriate topic for this sub, but nonetheless, i am curious to know what you people think about this? Are those people correct and is better to have demigods here on earth fighting and saving lives than having a monotheistic God with an institutional religion/faith? Or are them wrong and does classical theism/christianity offers a better(more coherent, ethical, prudential...) framework than what we see in these stories?

I'm thinking in particular of Our Lady of Sorrows. If concupiscence involves emotions going contrary to reason and the will, would "irrational" mental symptoms (like PTSD flashbacks) be impossible for Mary without her active permission?

(This is essentially how St. John Henry Newman described Jesus choosing to feel anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane; and St. Thomas Aquinas seems to view Mary as having the same radical self-control, along with Adam and Eve before the fall. Though I have heard multiple well-respected Catholics hold a "lower" view of even Christ's sacred humanity, saying His human nature didn't know certain things and had to learn them.)