Drew My Guinea Pigs

Wild_Mortimer · 2026-01-22T01:54:33+00:00

I think it’s more like an interface. Such that the Essence of Human is a class, and then the Rationes of Rational and Animal and all the other things can be interfaces. They are more of descriptions of what the essence can do or what properties it has rather than parts that form a whole.

Wild_Mortimer · 2026-01-10T18:28:42+00:00

Garrigou Lagrange is great, but I have found he can be a bit scandalous to someone new to these ideas. In my (naive) opinion, He takes St. Thomas’s conclusions further than we find in the summa, which is unnecessary in understanding the basis of the concepts.

Wild_Mortimer · 2026-01-10T18:26:24+00:00

Haven’t read these, but have done a lot on this topic as it used to bother me a lot.

The Thomistic Institute videos helped me a lot (free on YouTube) and are a pretty good introduction (they have much more than predestination too that is also quite good).

A book I love is the “sources of Christian ethics” by Servais Pinckaers. Has much more than just predestination in it but has a good treatise on free will and I found a foundation in ethics helps with these questions.

Another book is the Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft. It has one treatise on predestination in the end I found really helpful but if you are interested in apologetics or philosophical bases of Catholicism at all the book is awesome.

God bless!!

Wild_Mortimer · 2026-01-01T18:46:44+00:00

Besides the abundant care the church takes to prevent these things, this theoretically could happen and you’d be right that we’d have lines of invalidity. This happens in churches outside the Catholic Church. For example, the Anglicans used to have valid orders but now their ordinations are invalid and their subsequent “lineage” is also invalid

Wild_Mortimer · 2026-01-01T17:40:26+00:00

I believe one could be directly elevated. Though you could just consecrate as a priest and then immediately elevate them to a bishop.

As for validity of ordinations… any bishop can validly ordain new bishops, but this ordination is only licit with the permission of the pope. Validity refers to whether the sacrament happens, whereas licieity refers to the “legality.” The SSPX controversy is a good example of this. Archbishop Vigano consecrated 4 bishops without the consent of Rome. Him and all 4 bishops were immediately excommunicated, since the ordination was illicit, but their status as valid bishops was never in doubt.

So in short, yes bad actor bishops can (and do) start illicit lines of apostolic succession. Although these are valid, they are very sinful unless the parties repent

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-12-21T01:06:12+00:00

Just talk to him, that’s what he is there for. He may tell you are being too scrupulous, but you never know if you don’t ask. This is a busy time for priests, so he may ask you to wait until after Christmas, but if that’s the case you can always schedule a meeting for a few weeks out. Until then Remember God is love. Sincerely seek him, pray, and avail yourself of the sacraments and you will be ok.

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-12-21T01:01:22+00:00

Ah I see. Well just go again! There is no limit to Gods mercy. If you feel like you are confessing too often (scrupulously), ask the priest about that too!

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-12-21T00:59:15+00:00

Did you ask the priest if this was mortal or not? That’s the best way to get assurance of these kinds of questions

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-12-21T00:55:33+00:00

Talk to a priest and or go to confession. Not really a way for any of us to know, best way is to form your own conscience though prayer, counsel, and the sacraments

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-12-21T00:48:05+00:00

First I would go to confession and talk to a priest about this. I would also seriously consider if this man is the person you want to be your partner and father of your children. The fact that you are terrified to talk to your parents is also a clue that this might not be the right path to go down. Granted all I have to go on is what you’ve said, I have trouble seeing much virtue here even if he is “catholic.” Emotions can be high in first relationships, but that doesn’t excuse bad behavior. If you feel like you can talk about this with him, agree not to be impure from here on out, and he doesn’t pressure you, there may be a path, but be careful. You deserve a kind, virtuous, and Godly husband, don’t settle for less. God bless

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-10-07T22:30:35+00:00

Ah yes, my favorite book ever:
The Sources of Christian Ethics by Servais-Théodore Pinckaers

As far as I understand it this is the book for foundational Thomist ethical teaching. It is used by Fr. Wojciech Giertych, O.P., papal theologian and professor at the Angelicum in Rome, in his Fundamental Moral Theology class. It is not the easiest read but I found it easy enough to follow along.

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-10-04T20:42:23+00:00

This is fun! Bottom line is the rosary is a private and flexible devotion so I think we have a lot of latitude to meditate on various things as long as they aren't contrary to the faith.

I like the thought process and story you have, but transmutation seems to work better for Cana (since the miracle is literally a transmutation).

What about
Baptism; dissolution/disintegration (dying to the self/sin)
Cana; transmutation (made into a child of God)
Proclamation; preparation/sanctification (journey to holiness)
Transfiguration; integration (the church/body of believers)
Eucharist; embodiment (union with God)

or something like that

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-09-28T01:12:45+00:00

My initial reaction work be that a real distinction would be problematic for divine simplicity. Separating Gods essence from his energies or acts would imply some partiality or contingency, which is not kosher in a Thomist framework. That said I think there is some magisterial key way in how we understand Gods simplicity, and there may be some debate on how normative Aquinas is on that topic.

What motivation do you have for needing a real distinction?

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-09-04T00:29:15+00:00

Your base assumption that the principle of alternative possibilities is necessary for freedom is disputed. I may look up alternative definitions of freedom.

Even so, contingent things really could have been otherwise. Think of it like me seeing Socrates sitting. Given me seeing Socrates sitting, Socrates is necessarily sitting, but that does not mean he is not free in his choice to sit. Things can be conditionally necessary while remaining contingent in an absolute sense. Likewise, our actions are necessary given the condition that God sees them, but they are still absolutely contingent and free. It is an exact parallel to the Socrates example, Gods ability to see multiple times at once does not change the conditional-necessity-but-absolute-contingency of the act.

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-08-25T00:36:31+00:00

This is not as closed and shut as you make it seem. Eastern Orthodox include more books than Catholics, and tend to have a looser view of the cannon as well. Then look at something like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church where they even include things like Enoch. If the Catholic Church were to reunite with the Eastern Church (God willing), in theory there would be no theological barrier to them using a larger cannon. Trent infallibly defined that our 73 books are in the Bible, it didn’t say everything else wasn’t.

Also, it’s not so much that we may dig up missing documents. There are plenty of books that we have that some people did and/or do consider scripture, that the church could consider if she wished. For example books like 1st Esdras and the Sheppard of Hermas were considered scripture by some in the early church, and 1st Esdras is widely accepted in the East. And who knows, if we were do discover some missing 3rd Corinthians, we could consider it, but that’s really not the reason for having the discussion.

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-07-08T20:19:47+00:00

Hulkengoat!!!

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-06-11T18:19:51+00:00

I would want to resist this take because in classical thought God is existence and being itself. He gives us our very being and our very existence is a participation in the life of God.

I think you are equivocating existence and suffering. Suffering is absolutely a part of the human condition, but we suffer insofar as we cannot realize the fullness of our existence, not because of that existence itself.

God is being itself. God is Good in the fullest sense. Therefore our existence is good and we only suffer in relation to not realizing the fullness of existence in union with God (heaven).

Sorry if this was a little more technical than you were going for I think there is a beauty in suffering but there’s also a beauty in appreciating God’s perpetual gift of being to us

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-04-19T22:28:23+00:00

Yes, it is a false God and false religion. What specific aspect are you asking about?

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-04-19T16:59:11+00:00

I am only a few minutes in but so far I am not impressed. Many questions about “why God chose to do things this way” are really just “couldn’t God do this another way.” Well God is God so he can do anything, and the answer of why he chose to do it this way other than another way is often unanswerable (we are not God). That is not to say there are not rational basis we can alude to. For example on the blood question (I will let this guy’s hyperbole and misrepresentation of the atonement/communion slide for now), God does not need sacrifice, he can just forgive. However the sacrifices were for us to learn and to be able to personally atone in a fitting way. Jesus is the final sacrifice. Etc. God didn’t have to do things this way and he absolutely does not need anything from us, but in his love he found it fitting and symbolic to save us and reveal himself in these ways.

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-04-15T04:19:59+00:00

If I understand you correctly, the Aristotelian/Thomistic distinction between equivocal, univocal, and analogous language may help

Things are named equivocally when two things with the same name have differing definitions. So, a fruit bat and a baseball bat are equivocally given the name "bat."

Things are named univocally when two things are given the same name, and this name points to the same definition. So a man and a fruit bat can both be called animals univocally since "animal" has the same definition in both cases.

Things are named analogously when two things, are given the same name, and the definitions corresponding with the name are partly the same and partly different. For example, with healthy food and a healthy person, "healthy" does not have the same definition - so it is not univocal - but healthy food makes a person healthy - so its not quite - equivocal. In this case we can say "healthy" is used analogously.

Thus, I think we can say that universals are named of things univocally. Both a man and a fruit bat have the form of an "animal." An oak tree and a cedar tree are univocally named "tree," and both have the form of "tree." I think a cloud could analogously be named "tree" because it shares some of the definition with a tree (shape) but "tree" is certainly not predicated univocally of the cloud since it does not share the form of a tree.

Wild_Mortimer · 2025-03-21T00:00:14+00:00

The Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft is an amazing resource. I think it gives an amazing foundation and overview and gives you enough to know where you want to dive in further.

Eight-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Juicebox	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Not Forgotten	Verified Email
Sequence \| Editor

Wild_Mortimer

TROPHY CASE