This is such a retarded take lol. Has he even read what Aquinas says about the death penalty and that the Saints condemn many people for their actions and rebuke them like the Bible says? I think not. None of the Saints would say this. However, they would also suggest that she should repent and would pray for her, but this does not mean she shouldn’t be put to death. The book of Leviticus is very clear that such a thing is permissible.
We do not hate her per se, though we do hate her evil actions, which requires a conditional hatred of the impenitent person themselves. Imagine comparing suggesting someone to be put to death for doing something like Cardi B does to homicide. How blind can one be? This mindset is cancerous and is not the mindset of the Saints.
Also, this doesn’t mean it is out of anger. It is just an option that is there, an act of justice. Nobody is condoning vigilantism here.
We do not hate her per se, though we do hate her evil actions, which requires a conditional hatred of the impenitent person themselves. Imagine comparing suggesting someone to be put to death for doing something like Cardi B does to homicide. How blind can one be? This mindset is cancerous and is not the mindset of the Saints.
Also, this doesn’t mean it is out of anger. It is just an option that is there, an act of justice. Nobody is condoning vigilantism here.
Violent haters! This is not the spirit of the Lord!
Matt Fradd 😴 does not like what the Saints teach about the death penalty and how civil authorities burning certain people at the stake for their crimes is an act of justice 😡
Obviously Cardi B should be converted first and we should pray for her soul. Though, contrary to popular Norvus Ordoite opinion, the option of her being [redacted] is certainly there and would be permissible to advocate for it to be done by valid authority.
Apparently if you have a different opinion than Matt Fradd relating to this you are filled with violent hatred for people.
Apparently if you have a different opinion than Matt Fradd relating to this you are filled with violent hatred for people.
Matt Fradd fanboys are going to be terrified when they learn what the Church teaches on the death penalty
Forwarded from ↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟ (Racist Catholic)
“If heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command.”
- St. Thomas Aquinas
- St. Thomas Aquinas
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
“If heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command.” - St. Thomas Aquinas
Awkward! Guess it’s time for Pints with Aquinas to rebrand to Pints with Matt.
> Dave Rubin - Kike, "Married" Homosexual.
“Concerning the prohibition of usury and base gain by the clergy; and concerning the prohibition against conversing or eating with the Jews. No priest shall set money out at interest or take unfair profit or be friendly or sociable with Jews; nor should anyone take food or drink with the Jews; for if this was decreed by the holy apostles, it is incumbent upon the faithful to obey their command; and the synod shall excommunicate any one who does not comply with this order.”
[First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa - Pope Saint Sylvester I]
If this is not for the intention of conversion thant what is it for?
“Concerning the prohibition of usury and base gain by the clergy; and concerning the prohibition against conversing or eating with the Jews. No priest shall set money out at interest or take unfair profit or be friendly or sociable with Jews; nor should anyone take food or drink with the Jews; for if this was decreed by the holy apostles, it is incumbent upon the faithful to obey their command; and the synod shall excommunicate any one who does not comply with this order.”
[First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa - Pope Saint Sylvester I]
If this is not for the intention of conversion thant what is it for?
What is Divine Simplicity?
Divine Simplicity is to say that God is without out parts, has no ability to undergo change, is subsistent being itself and what it means to be. He is pure act [actus purus]. The DDS also says that God is wholly immutable and is pure actuality. That is to say, without any potential to acquire something new, say, a new attribute, as he is to be and is existence itself, which cannot be seperated from his essence. If God was not pure actuality (that which already exists), then he would have the potential to become composite, thus, being wholly mutable.
Gods existence being wholly inseparable from his essence can only be understood by way of the distinction between act and potency. That which can exist but does not is said to exist in potency, and that which already exists is said to exist in actuality. If God had the ability to exist in potency then he would undergo change. As whatever begins to exist is created. Therefore not of God, as God cannot be composed of parts because he is absolutely simple and pure actuality itself in his superessential transcendence and essence. This would mean that he would have parts, meaning that they would have to be ontologically prior to him since if God were composed of them, he would be dependent on them.
Here in his book ‘God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the metaphysics of Gods absoluteness’ relating to the above point, Dr. James E. Doelzal, Reformed Scholastic Scholar says very wisely:
“if God were not ontologically identical with all that is in him, then something other than God himself would be needed to account for his existence, essence, and attributes. But nothing that is not God can sufficiently account for God. He exists in all his perfection entirely in and through himself. At the heart of the classical DDS is the concern to uphold God’s absolute self-sufficiency as well as his ultimate sufficiency for the existence of the created universe.” - p. 16
This is basically the foundation of Aquinas’ whole metaphysical structure. Namely, act and potency, existence and essence, hylermorphism and the four causes.
However, don’t get confused, Gods divinity doesn’t change just because he is capable of acting within time. If something begins to exist then that means it was once not the thing it acquired, meaning, not of God, but a created part. That which does not exist cannot possibly bring itself into existence either. God cannot be inferior to himself, as whatever is brought to be is subject to something else.
Divine Simplicity is to say that God is without out parts, has no ability to undergo change, is subsistent being itself and what it means to be. He is pure act [actus purus]. The DDS also says that God is wholly immutable and is pure actuality. That is to say, without any potential to acquire something new, say, a new attribute, as he is to be and is existence itself, which cannot be seperated from his essence. If God was not pure actuality (that which already exists), then he would have the potential to become composite, thus, being wholly mutable.
Gods existence being wholly inseparable from his essence can only be understood by way of the distinction between act and potency. That which can exist but does not is said to exist in potency, and that which already exists is said to exist in actuality. If God had the ability to exist in potency then he would undergo change. As whatever begins to exist is created. Therefore not of God, as God cannot be composed of parts because he is absolutely simple and pure actuality itself in his superessential transcendence and essence. This would mean that he would have parts, meaning that they would have to be ontologically prior to him since if God were composed of them, he would be dependent on them.
Here in his book ‘God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the metaphysics of Gods absoluteness’ relating to the above point, Dr. James E. Doelzal, Reformed Scholastic Scholar says very wisely:
“if God were not ontologically identical with all that is in him, then something other than God himself would be needed to account for his existence, essence, and attributes. But nothing that is not God can sufficiently account for God. He exists in all his perfection entirely in and through himself. At the heart of the classical DDS is the concern to uphold God’s absolute self-sufficiency as well as his ultimate sufficiency for the existence of the created universe.” - p. 16
This is basically the foundation of Aquinas’ whole metaphysical structure. Namely, act and potency, existence and essence, hylermorphism and the four causes.
However, don’t get confused, Gods divinity doesn’t change just because he is capable of acting within time. If something begins to exist then that means it was once not the thing it acquired, meaning, not of God, but a created part. That which does not exist cannot possibly bring itself into existence either. God cannot be inferior to himself, as whatever is brought to be is subject to something else.
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
Elijah Yasi Part 1: Answering Ubi Petrus on Papal Infallibility https://youtu.be/MH6HexjLlJ0
Ybarra already answered him on St. Leo’s tome, but after this... consider him done.
Forwarded from IMPERIVM
“If one does not believe in God, the only honest alternative is vulgar utilitarianism. The rest is rhetoric.”
@ImperivmRenaissance
@ImperivmRenaissance
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
What is Divine Simplicity? Divine Simplicity is to say that God is without out parts, has no ability to undergo change, is subsistent being itself and what it means to be. He is pure act [actus purus]. The DDS also says that God is wholly immutable and is…
In order for the identity of essence and existence in God to make sense, essence and existence must be really distinct in created things. Because they are really distinct in created things, essence stands to existence as potency does to act. And because of this, if in God essence and existence were not identical, then there would be passive potency in Him.