If a Pope were to ever try and use his infallible powers to pronounce heresy or error he would be stopped from doing so before the pronouncement by Christ himself. Divine intervention is something allot of people miss when speaking about Vatican I and the Relatio. A Pope cannot do such a thing, it is simply impossible. If you seriously think that a Pope can infallibly declare something to be “dogma” which is in fact heretical, go read the Relatio.

You see this? This is Catholic theology, where distinctions are made and logic is used. A far cry from the rattling houses of sedevacantism which cannot even be bothered to quote correctly the theologians - but this matter I shall leave for another day, as I have sufficiently bruised the pride of sedevacantes and destroyed their heretical ideas, for now.

It is just like arguing with the Orthodox about Thomism and VI.

Fr. Hesse has already dealt with this too. Someone who the sedevecantists fear greatly.

What he’s referring to here can only be articulated thoroughly with respect to Divine Simplicity and the recognition of a real distinction between essence and existence in creatures, and between creator and creature. If God were not His essence and existence, or subsistent being itself, that is, that which is the fullness of being itself, then all creatures would be absolutely one.

Everything that begins to exist in times needs a cause. God never began to exist since He is His existence and essence, and is what it means to be itself. What he’s pointing at here is precisely to this, that the further and further you go back, the more you arrive at the conclusion that we needed an Absolutely divine and self-sufficient God to bring us into existence. The creator-creature distinction is also a good argument for His existence. Along with the teleological, cosmological and moral arguments.

Contingent things all need an explanation for their own existence, that is, a infinitely transcendent being that first brought these things into existence. This is the crux of the argument for the proving of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR).

Another thing to note is that without this distinction, Gods absoluteness, self-sufficency, eternality, simplicity, individibility, infinitude, etc. could not be predicated differently creaturely finitude and being. God is Being itself, and subsists in Himself. This isn’t the case with creatures. Nor are creatures quiddities identical to their esse. When we refer to existence too, it is important to recognise that existence (esse) refers that which is and already exists. Essence (essentia) refers to whatness, or precisely, that by which the thing is what it is.

If God was created that would imply some sort of composition in God, a sense of potency. Which would mean that these parts’ existence is that by which a specific being, namely here, God, depends upon for its existence. Hinting at some sort of ontological priorness pertaining to composition. Now, he we arrive at the fact that God is pure actuality. A very important part of comprehending *in a sense* His essence and existence, along with Him being subsistent being itself (ipsum esse subsistens).

Here we arrive at the conclusion that if esse and essentia are really distinct in each creature the only explanation for its esse is either that it was caused by the essence or it came to the creature from an “extrinsic principle”, in which we call God. Something that is pure act with no potency to become something it is not, or was not at one point. This is precisely how we make sense of the distinction, which, in turn, furthers the proof for the existence of God.

Since God’s being is completely in act, there can be nothing potential or limiting within it. Potentiality or composition in God implies that ability to change and thus limiting God’s mode of being and from doing some certain thing. Since potency simply means that which can exist or has the potential to, and doesn’t actually exist. It needs to come to be, meaning it once was not, and therefore, created.

To be honest, I was quite surprised that he only used some eh wording toward the end and didn’t mess up at all really. Pretty rare coming from some random British dude on tiktok who I have no knowledge of lol.

The Thomistic ontological and cosmological arguments are superior.

Third way = best way 😎

Oh, and when I say creature, that can also be applied to contingent things in a sense. Well, with contingency it more or less comes down to the PSR.

"Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love,
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved, as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life."

~St. Francis of Assisi

@ImperivmRenaissance

Charlemagne The Anti-Semite — Persecuting Jewish Money-Lending and Commerce [YouTube]

In this video I address the false accusation that Charlemagne aided Jews in the monopolisation of money-lending in Europe; and bring to light that he did exactly the opposite and persecuted Jewish money-lending and commerce with the "Capitulary for the Jews" (814).

This Franciscan preached a crusade which delivered Europe from the Mohammedans in the fifteenth century. He died in 1456.

Pretty much all of modern thought is rooted in the complete rejection of Aquinas

Just realised that Graham Oppy out of all people, who, being a very intelligent analytic atheist philosopher, even stated that Divine Simplicity is ‘devilishly complex.’ Maybe this is why contemporary philosophers can’t seem to grasp it at all so instead they just push it off to the side.

March 28 – St John Capistran, Confessor

The Crusader — Then the hero of the day, St. John Capistrano, already feared for a long time by hell, attained the consummation of his glory and sanctity. At the head of a few poor men of good will, unknown peasants gathered together by the Franciscan Friars, this “poor man of Christ” undertook to defeat the strongest and best organized army of the century. On the 14th of July, 1456, he broke through the Ottoman lines with John Hunyades, the only one of the Hungarian nobles who would accompany him, and revictualled Belgrade; and on the 22nd of July, feeling that he could no longer endure the defensive, he threw himself, to the stupefaction of Hunyades, on the enemy entrenchments.

His troops were armed only with flails and pitchforks, and their only strategy was the name of Jesus. John had inherited this victorious battle-cry from his master, Bernardine of Siena. The Psalmist said: Some trust in chariots and some in horses: but we will call upon the name of the Lord our God. (Psalm 19:8) This name, so holy and so terrible, proved once more the salvation of the people. At the end of that memorable day twenty-four thousand Turks lay dead on the field of battle; three hundred cannon and all the spoils of the infidels were in the hands of the Christians, and Mahomet II was seeking a distant hiding place for his shame.

Lol I took those pics

That was written by Archbishop Lefebvre in his book "Against the heresies". +Lefebvre had a brilliant mind.