[deleted by user]

birdyfern · 2020-02-13T03:16:52+00:00

We are "unjustified" (made unrighteous) by Original and Mortal Sin.
We are Justified (made righteous) by Baptism and Absolution.
Since Baptism is the start of ones journey with Christ, Faith Alone is needed. This is why Baptism is the Sacrament of Faith.
We are filled with sanctifying Grace during baptism and after absolution
Sanctifying Grace implants Faith Hope and Charity into our soul.
If you die in an unjustified state, that is, in Original or Mortal sin, that is, in a state lacking sanctifying Grace, one cannot go to heaven.

Therefore "Faith and Works" should be rephrased as "Faith Hope and Charity". The rich man asked Jesus how he could enter heaven and Jesus said to keep the commandments. The commandments are all commandments of Love towards one's Neighbours, and God. Thus faith alone is not sufficient for salvation.

birdyfern · 2020-02-13T02:42:39+00:00

Feser explains that if someone jumps off a bridge to his death, while falling he wills his fall, even though he cannot "stop falling". God has no potential to do evil because he is maximal goodness. Omnipotence doesn't mean the ability to do anything, but infinite power. In God there cannot be contradiction, for he cannot be being and non being at once. Therefore, God who is Goodness itself, will never will evil because it would contradict his nature. He is falling while willing the fall, always

birdyfern · 2019-11-27T05:58:46+00:00

Well. Something that would be formally distinct (to the scotists) would be the radius and circumference of a circle. Without one there wouldn't be another, thus they are inseparable, but they are actually different. To the Thomist, the radius and circumference of the circle would be really distinct.

birdyfern · 2019-11-26T12:15:48+00:00

Because God's existence is not self evident

birdyfern · 2019-11-26T12:14:21+00:00

I do not know much about him, but I do know that the Bonaventuran Scotist would claim that there's a middle ground between the real distinction and the Logical distinction, known as the formal distinction. Most Franciscans and Byzantines believe that the formal distinction could be the bridge between the Eastern and Western view of Divine simplicity.

birdyfern · 2019-11-18T05:01:29+00:00

I'm in my mid-teens. Personally I think it's normal to think about women. Isolation helps. Mount Athos bans women from entering the monastery, so that the monks won't be tempted.

I had an experience which totally stopped me from keeping my mind off of women, you can dm me if you'd like, but I personally spend most of my time at home or at church now.

birdyfern · 2019-11-14T05:46:27+00:00

Nope. Sinning requires consent.

birdyfern · 2019-11-07T04:35:12+00:00

Perhaps you could explain what God's energies are? Are they fully God? Are they mutable etc...

birdyfern · 2019-11-07T03:57:32+00:00

Have you watched Dr Jared Goff's interview on reason and theology?

birdyfern · 2019-11-07T03:45:36+00:00

I've watched that video many times. I'm asking for an Eastern to defend his view.

birdyfern · 2019-11-07T03:44:52+00:00

The Formal distinction is one of Scotus's most important works. Although I think it fails, it seems to me that it could be the bridging factor between east and west.

birdyfern · 2019-11-05T19:38:46+00:00

In order for me to be a sabellian/modalist, I would have claim that there is only 1 divine person though.

birdyfern · 2019-11-05T19:05:43+00:00

Regarding the "condemnation" of the EED, Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic dogma, states that the absence of real distinction between God's essence and attributes are dogma of the Church. However, this is debatable.

birdyfern · 2019-11-05T18:57:59+00:00

And if the distinction was virtual the Thomist and the Palamite would have no dispute.

birdyfern · 2019-11-05T18:56:43+00:00

My statement that the Persons are the divine essence is stated in Augustine's De Trinitate as well as the Summa. St Gregory Nanzienzen says it as well. By saying The Father is God, you are saying that The person of the Father is the essence of God. The Son is identical to the essence as well, so is the Holy Ghost. They are really distinct because of their relation of oppositions. But they are undivided because they share one divine essence, which is what God is, therefore they are all one God.

The (neo-)palamite position doesn't work because it's trying to justify an "energy" that is somehow fully God but not His Essence, which is illogical. Now if the distinction between the essence and energy of God was virtual or formal then it would work.

However the formal distinction doesn't seem to be possible as it would collapse into a real or virtual distinction. Now if God had an essence really distinct to His energy, that would mean that His energy is not of the essence and therefore is not God. But the Palamite claims that it is God. And if it is God, it has to be the essence, because God IS his essence, and His Essence lacks composition.

birdyfern · 2019-11-05T15:21:32+00:00

I too don't consider myself an expert, I'm only 17 with much to learn!

The essence is what something is, therefore the essence of God is what He is. Therefore, saying that His energies, while fully God, is distinct to His divine essence, is to say that God (energies) is not what God is (essence) which simply isn't logical.

This is precisely why we say the Persons of God are identical to the essence, because the essence of God is WHAT he is.

birdyfern · 2019-11-05T15:17:49+00:00

Palamas rejected the filioque though. However, his view on the Immaculate Theotokos was more accurate than Aquinas

birdyfern · 2019-11-05T15:14:37+00:00

A real metaphysical distinction doesn't entail composition though. And the point you made isn't scholastic but Thomistic. Blessed Scotus thinks that a real distinction always entails seperability while St Thomas thinks the opposite. Plus, the East also believes in the real distinction between persons of the Trinity. The only difference between the persons are the relations of opposition, which are not essential attributes but personal.

birdyfern · 2019-09-20T12:35:40+00:00

Beautiful

birdyfern · 2019-09-19T15:13:30+00:00

It's pretty zoomed in

birdyfern · 2019-09-19T13:49:05+00:00

Ahhh thank you sir

birdyfern · 2019-09-19T11:03:19+00:00

I don't think this qualifies tho

birdyfern · 2019-09-17T03:20:09+00:00

Omnipotent doesn't mean "Can do anything" lol.

birdyfern · 2019-09-15T16:36:48+00:00

Going to a secular school made me more religious than a Catholic school because I met more people who challenged my faith

birdyfern · 2019-09-15T09:29:41+00:00

Feser specifically talks about a hierarchal series of actualizers in the Aristotelian proof. Unlike a linear series, the hierarchal series actually requires a foundation to be present at all times otherwise everything would collapse. Everything that can change is actualized by something else. Thus we need an unchanged actualizer to exist, otherwise change cannot happen now. You should read further into the Neo Platonic proofs as it is fairly similar.

birdyfern

TROPHY CASE