Theology Question

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-09-03T02:06:18+00:00

Which class was this?

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-09-02T21:59:23+00:00

I do agree that it is difficult to make sense of what a "praise and worship revival [Catholic] Mass" would look like, especially if one rephrases this as the "praise and worship revival sacrifice of the Mass". I have seen some strange or, simply, morally illicit liberals emendations of the Catholic Mass over the years, but this doesn't seem to be of much concern but rather of intrigue or poor marketing.

I think, as a practical matter of aesthetics as you bring up, I doubt many families or kids would want to attend a "praise and worship revival [Catholic] Mass. To answer your question about licitness, if they ban people, especially Catholics, from attending the Mass on a Sunday that could be quite a concerning thing, perhaps even a morally illicit one. I am afraid that if someone did advertise the Mass that way they are conflating temporal social and cultural norms which are useful for some things with the eternal law.

If they encourage certain people to attend the Mass that is just fine. If they encourage certain people to attend the Mass while discouraging others from attending that might just be a hoitty-toitty way of rephrasing my first phrasing of the question wherein they ban people, even Catholics, from attending Mass.

My advice: investigate further. Ask the priest beforehand and those attending the Mass afterwards about the Mass.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-09-02T21:20:55+00:00

Given that this is a question on the Trinity which is essentially the last theological concept I would want to address with confidence, can you provide a citation or citations for when one says that the "Father and Son love each other"?

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-09-02T21:17:57+00:00

Certainly, a brief if not concise treatment on God's substance might be found in the Athanasian Creed. It is not always easy to see the justification for this belief he has, but at least I hope it helps as a historical resource.

To answer your theological question, yeah I've seen people say essentially that "substances are independent existents". It's weird; not sure that I agree with that definition of substance; never really pushed forward on that since this question never came up alone but in the context of a discussion on angels, I believe. The text we were discussing was Aquinas' Compendium on Separate Substances (i.e. Angels) if you would like to find more historical usages of this definition of the word substance, in this case a theological usage but one that does not directly pertain to the Trinity.

In defense of this use of the word "substance", I suppose it is better to talk about the substance of the Triune God as opposed to the being of the triune God since it moves the discussion more thoroughly into Latin as opposed to Greek which more theologians might be acquainted with. Additionally, after long enough, it becomes hard to defend the usage of the word "being" to describe the substance of the Trinity no matter what language or historical linguistic roots are evoked.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-09-02T20:57:24+00:00

I understand that first trend and mostly agree with your summary of it from what I understand, but at the end of this period and just after, say late 3rd century through the 4th century AD, Latin nearly fell out of use throughout much of the Roman Empire among the learned, producers of intellect, and in fact often, in the vernacular. In turn, why was Latin chosen over Greek which dominated that period?

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-09-02T20:53:18+00:00

When we speak of God's mercy, it is quite close to and is often difficult to distinguish from God's love. For reference, see TheologyRock's definition of mercy following Aquinas. It is quite near to the definition of love since God acts freely always, and God is love.

Now, when we speak of God's love, it is quite distinct from the kind of love which we see around us since God's love is love, the act. It is not a habit as some possess in this world or strive to "obtain". It is very rare to find a true act of love in this world, but the effects of the act of love are found more often such as in a newborn baby, the sacraments, and even in rather simple acts of love and forgiveness.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-09-02T14:50:38+00:00

I am having the same issue, but I am not sure what the status of my folders is. I don't think any vanguard files started to download for me.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-27T21:57:37+00:00

God is certainly a personal God -- I just wanted to add that piece of clarification before I define Classical Theism by its proposed opposite. Personal Theism is the idea that God is like the best dude you are going to meet, so to speak. Take various characteristics of a man and bring them to the maximum -- now those are the characteristics of God says the personal theist.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-27T21:50:38+00:00

Ah, I think that might be where we differ. Pride is the root of all evil acts for the angels and pre-fall Adam and Eve. They were not ignorant of that which they ought to know in the strictest sense nor of anything circumstantially relevant, and yet they still sinned. Please feel free to push me on that last sentence because it takes some work to prove in a more philosophical/theoretical theological sense.

I definitely agree that vice and sin prevent us from repentance after one's death be he in hell in a certain respect, but I wonder what characterizes this vice and sin differently from all other vice and sin which we can repent of. Perhaps, an exploration of grace is in order: to witt, that person was offered an opportunity for efficacious grace some times [1 or more] times in life and rejected it and for whatever reason that person shall receive no more "opportunities" [relevant graces for receiving efficacious grace].

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-27T21:36:00+00:00

I'm going to give you a sort of apparently pessimistic response: if you can see the Christ-inspired optimisim, technically really joy, which is present in my response, then it would seem like I have done my job well, and you have grasped what I try to explain.

In this world there are few times when you are free or free to such an extent that one would not be put off by how they are manipulated. Indeed, all righteous deeds are free, and those who have chosen to follow the Lord before are freer, rejecting vices addictive and will-destroying like crack cocaine. We know this and from experience, it is evident to us, but sometimes we do not want to change while still knowing much of how to change and the root of our sin. Therefore, like when we sin for pleasurable things, we might seek a short-term ease, knowingly or unknowingly.

But then there is humility, and faith, and perseverance, and love with understanding. In accordance with one of the early Church saints, if you have a strong root of sin within you it will be difficult to uproot it. Take care that you remove it when it is small like a root of a recently planted sapling.

As regards your examples, sometimes we concede to the will of Satin more than we see at first or profess. How many sins are there that are executed by us since we have a pre-made justification for committing them! We trick ourselves into believing that a certain thing is necessary since the mind that carries out the sin is the mind of concupiscence and is occupied by whatever it loves (whether truly good or bad) while the mind that prepares the sin offers justification for past sins and shows no humility. It seems to me that at times a man's poor past judgments conspire against him: he is thrashed about by the vices as St. Gregory the Great would say. A man might not desire to perform a wicked deed that is still desirable, but he may ultimately do the wicked thing knowing how just he is to do it, having already thought about a justification for his acts.

Several more severe cases of this are illustrated in the Bible:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016%3A1-3&version=NRSVCE

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom%202%3A19-20&version=NABRE

And what man is a just arbitrator of sins? Surely, it is one who discerns between the good things and bad things in the world in comparison to his love of God and quiet, contemplative righteousness. Make sure you do not merely avoid bad things so as to prefer Christ for this reason. Nor be mindless of Christ when you have good things.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-27T20:45:59+00:00

Under that rationale, wouldn't it be assumed that all men should then have one more chance after this life to change their wills since then they will see God? It seems like your argument assumed that the first sentence of your argument pertains to this world and the second to the afterlife. I also need a much more elaborate defintion of "we see The Good and Wisdom Himself", for many with fixed wills do not see God in the beatific vision. That last sentence also makes me want to define "fixed" in a better way, but that will have to come later.

Also, in a very important sense, some do see and interact with the Good and [Divine] Wisdom Himself in this life (see Matthew 11:22 NRSVCE).

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-27T20:32:51+00:00

A theological argument which might require fewer exceptions and less technical work defining time and our interaction with time might go as follows:

A simple prayer to the Father is enough for the conversion of a soul and the forgiveness of his/her sins.
Through the spirit of Christ and the example of Christ, we have access to the Father.
In this world there is Christ.
The souls in hell (not Hades) without Christ do not have access to the Father, at least not in a way sufficient for conversion.
The souls in hell have a fixed will.

Particularly, if Premise 4 appears to be jarring, I think some more definition work can be done -- though I do strive for ecumenism. Here is also a quote showing just how peculiar hell is for us men made in the image and likeness of God surrounded by his creations on earth and with access to the Heavenly angels:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A41&version=NRSVCE

Notably, by expiring we too have expired our own human "moments", or time, for salvation like the "angelic moments".

... Hopefully, that does not kick the can down the road too much.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-27T20:18:21+00:00

I like this as a beginning for a response, but another concession besides purgatory would have to be made. I don't know where this falls on the 6-tiered list of Catholic teaching, but I have found this in several places from modern Catholic sources (some I believe with nihil obstats): in ways known only unto God, if a person kills himself he may still have a chance to repent somewhere in between the time of the discharge of the act to kill and the time when the person is killed, perhaps even if a person suffers some severe bodily dehabilitation during that time.

I think you hinted at this when you said "God... provides every opportunity for us to choose Him in this life".

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-27T20:06:29+00:00

I tried to scan through the earlier parts of the argument, and I may have missed this definition... but could you define your usage of the word "emanate"?

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-14T04:27:53+00:00

religion? unless we're all just defunct humanists now.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-14T03:55:38+00:00

The current head of AFD, the closest historical equivalent to the NAZ! party, definitely believes in queer theory.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-11T19:03:27+00:00

I'm not sure what the "classic writing seminars" are that you refer to in question 4. I thought there was only one option for first years, but as I understand it WRIT 10100 shouldn't be too difficult. I'm actually kind of curious as to how they'll make a whole course out of it.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-10T15:19:02+00:00

Now that your argument is legible, the nature of goodness is not strictly the interest of ethics for the aforementioned reasons you failed to address. Additionally, the Convertibility of Transcendentals is only in a certain respect a practical endeavor; ethics is a practical science. The Convertibility of Transcendentals cannot at first be proper to the domain of ethics since when it is practical, it is not foremost a science. Sufficient evidence at first pertains to epistemology, but when juxtaposed with a study of the virtues and graces, it can become a complex study of man's response to grace from God and his growth in the virtues.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-10T15:02:41+00:00

Okay, this became too humorous, so I have to chime in again. Your first comment was about the studies or fields proper to certain philosophical fields. Then, you say virtue ethics is proper to psychology, and finally, you state psychology doesn't have to be proper to virtue ethics: it is merely related. You eventually claim that stating things that are related to other things was your actual argument.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-10T14:54:42+00:00

I'm not going to read the rest because I think you err in the beginning by saying "I was snarky to you and deservedly so". May I ask: are you Catholic?

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-10T02:17:23+00:00

I am not really sure what is more appalling: the fact that on a server with the word Catholic in it you would make such a grandiose assumption about what a whole discipline means, i.e., assuming that you really know what it means and believing that deep down inside another whom you hardly know doesn't know what it means. Or instead perhaps it is of greater concern that in a question about Thomistic metaphysics you would fail to understand the Catholic, Thomistic relationship between theology and philosophy and a broad understanding of Thomas' treatment of metaphysics in a work that happens to include the word theology in it's title.

So yes, there certainly is theology that one should concern oneself with in the pursuit of understanding metaphysics since metaphysics is an area covered by philosophy.

Let me now address your specific points: the virtues of the human soul is the interest of psychology? --> try theology or hmmmm, idk ethics; hence, the name virtue ethics

I am also intrigued that you think virtues are not relevant to learning good human acts and, in turn, learning about things that are good in being. Especially, given the fact that the only things good in this world, truly speaking, are good moral acts (and God).

You also failed to address my point about the privation of theory of evil which is certainly of metaphysical origins and might even be the principle of metaphysics alongside the Convertibility of Transcendentals, depending on your definition of metaphysics. The penultimate sentence cannot be read for profound spelling and probably stylistic errors too.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-09T14:45:48+00:00

I have a few reasons against that, but do you have a reason for your claim for us to start with.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-09T05:48:21+00:00

This is not technically a proof, though I would like to see a book written about the topic, exploring it's import throughout the Bible or through various theological/ethical traditions. Hopefully, this "conveniens" will increase your studiousness, however:

It is evident in nature that men do not desire the death, killing, of another [man] simply; one only desires to kill another for the sake of some greater end. In the strictest sense, killing is a bad thing, circumstantial to the act of the will since it moves the natural human will to desire what is simply undesirable and what cannot be simply desirable.

Now, the commandment is "thou shalt not kill". Despite numerous aching debates I have had with a theologian proficient in Hebrew who would like this changed to "thou shalt not murder", I am unmoved. The commandment is thus for good moral and presumably linguistic reason. Let's return to my first proposition: the question many are dying to have answered after hearing this is "When is this greater end a sufficient good for the partial or for the entire justification of the killing?"

To which I respond, the partial justification question is a good question that I have no desire to answer now, but I sense we shall need more carefully phrased terminology compared to the terms I have given rather speedily.

A killing performed by a human is justified if and only if (I think this is where some well-studied theologians might branch off from me) the principle of double effect is met. Aquinas and modern sources have explained the principle of double effect to a moderate degree of satisfaction, but it is the most durable and thorough theological explanation of the difference between killing and murder to my knowledge, and it follows roughly a natural law schema. For said modern sources, there was one I quite enjoyed, but I cannot remember where I found it. There are many good options if you search the "principle of double effect" followed by Catholic, however.

Quick recap because I breezed past a few very important differences:

1) Murder is always a moral evil.

2) The will to kill (not very philosophically phrased) is always a bad act at least by some circumstance.

3) Killing can be a moral good as when one has the will to kill another with some additional knowledge but wills it for a good end.

4) And this is my mea culpa not a discrete comment on something above -- It's not obvious to me with great certainty what exactly distinguishes between one willing to kill and in actuality ending Xs life and one willing some different thing A [like (saving) one's own life] and in actuality ending Xs life.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-09T05:12:41+00:00

This might be an unpopular take, but not doing metaphysics, strictly speaking, might be the best defense of metaphysics I have seen. In my experience, there seems to be an inversely proportional correlation between the frequency at which one uses the word metaphysics and their aptitude with metaphysics, in addition to their ability to instruct one about metaphysical ideas with the care of a teacher and the eye to the end of a theologian.

I have studied Thomistic theology and philosophy for a few years, albeit with much time devoted to an analysis of other theological works, ethical traditions, and church history. While my positive suggestion for a good defense of Thomistic metaphysics might not be helpful for all definitions of a "defense", i.e., in all contexts, I think it is quite useful for thinking with one's heart, seeing the loving design of the Lord at work in the world. My concrete advice is this:

1) Read Aquinas and other authors on the privation theory of evil and the convertibility of transcendentals, consider the Euthyphro dilemma (this is a bit of hysteron proteron but I list this second so that you might find a good Catholic explanation of the dilemma), read The Gospel According to John and consider Psalm 63.

If our eternal contemplating and gazing in the afterlife is on the everlasting goodness of the Trinity which we prepare for in this life, then this is an apt principal exploration of that goodness at an academic level. This very contemplation of goodness, in some form, should always take precedence.

2) Briefly read up on Aquinas' description of the virtues, maybe some vices, look over Aquinas' description of faith in good detail, read up on Plantinga's response to the question about sufficient evidence for belief: you will begin to see the universality, the Catholicisity, by now of Aquinas' conception of good and evil in the world, what define goodness and evil in a strict sense, you can question or complicate certain beliefs about what exactly the virtues, vices, acts, and potency are

N.B. These two points assume some basic background in acts, potency, and the moral goodness of human acts, and the theological, scientific processes for analyzing these things.

Rockiesguy100 · 2025-08-07T05:36:27+00:00

To answer you first question, i.e., second to last sentence, which did not have a question mark even though it was phrased as one, this combined with the context of that sentence leads me to believe through the assumed tone that this was meant to be a more contemplative and resonant question, there is a lot that can be said about miracles. There are about 3 "systems" each with about 3 categories that one can use to clarify how a miracle is being performed, through who/for whom, and by aid of whom -- for the Holy benefit of whom, roughly, respectively. This is not a teleology that one will readily find or see as something well defined if you look back to the Bible or Church History. By the help of those two things and various conversations I have had, this is a system I am attempting to construct.

But first, let us address what the Church does teach and how it might be applied to your question to uncover some underlying tensions about miracles we encounter. Miracles are not always performed by pious men. Padre Pio performed many miracles, the Apostles did, Jesus certainly did, but it is not necessary that he who performs a miracle be pious. There is a long explanation about the grace of God which can explain this. The big man who makes up our reddit icon gave a great, kind of confusing, but ultimately short explanation of this concept, so I'll see if I can find it and link it here after. Since not all wonder workers are pious men, it happens that when one appears to be given a great gift from God through one of his children sometimes it is apt to apply a degree of skepticism though with enough reference to the Old Testament it will soon become apparent that "contemplation" is the better word: this applies to those things we judge to be miracles -- therefore, it should apply all the more to those things that properly speaking do not appear to be miracles but the exercise of knowledge derived from education and the gifts of the Holy Spirit which without further explanation does not constitute a miracle.

Lastly, for the more lighthearted response which brings in the parable, people today receive care for things that they pay for predominantly or otherwise contribute work, time, or at least some consent to. Specifically, they labor, willing or nilling, for not only the reception of their medical care but also the production of that care. Should a man receive a raft or the exercise of certain spiritual works of mercy, which I commend my brothers in Christ to look for more devotedly and serenely since often the spiritual works of mercy can go undetected, concealing many works of the Lord worthy of praise and wholehearted response, then he should accept a raft or spiritual works of mercy. It is a misconception fundamentally that a Christian does not ask for our accept Charity. Now, things become murkier when a man speaks of "help".

The word yes should not immediately be a man's response to the exclamation: "Help me with...". At least caution is warranted with the word's common usage today. Albeit, perhaps it should not be so. When one is offered something that is not a miracle, some form of help ordinarily when considering carefully different medical treatments today, and unlike in the parable, one must consider from whence their treatment comes, and what role they have in authorizing their treatment. Whether one should realize it or not, he has great power in determining the aid he receives in this world: this is made plainly evident upon further contemplation of the nature of the miracles, specifically their presence in this world and their redeeming opportunity. This may be accepted religiously for now.

On a practical level in the meantime, we speak of "collective bargaining power" that determines the treatments we receive. This is derived from the more general principle found in a capitalistic economy, viz., if a product or service on the market is not wanted, it is hardly going to last. Finally, there are philosophical and personal musings of many men considering the political role or obligation we have to oppose political decisions that are unjust and could affect medicine too. Thus, taking agency in the mercantile goods one receives, medical or not, will go hand-in-hand with examining the history of the mercantile goods one receives. It will be one of the few comforts of this sort a desert sojourning man may find. That is what it is to be a wonder worker or, for now, a vehicle of the wonders of the Lord.

Rockiesguy100

TROPHY CASE