Vini retweeted
βFor a parallel friendship one must go back to the days of David. βAnd it came to pass β¦ the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.ββ
β Fr. John Placid Conway, O.P., A Biographical Study of the Angelic Doctor, Part II, Ch. III.
Pope Alexander VII himself confronted Mastrius because of his uncharitable treatment of Ferchi, for example.
Mastriusβ criticism of Zumel also clearly misunderstands him and confuses his early Banezian position with his more mature authentic thought. He conflates the restricted admission of conditional decrees with their universal assertion concerning all possible futuribilia. The decrees differ in their objective specification, terminus, and relation to divine foreknowledge. And without establishing identity under each formal ratio, the contradiction simply does not follow.
Embarrassing take from him. The Mercedarian doctor remains undefeated.
"I respond that it is Zumel who deserves to be ridiculed rather than the conditional decrees β he who, unmindful of himself, says at tom. I, variarum disp. fol. 117, Sed dices, and fol. 150, at the end, that these decrees are not incompatible with God and are not superfluous; indeed, which is still more worthy of ridicule, he adds that the authors of the opposing opinion β who are themselves forgetful and did not concede it to others in other passages β also confess this same thing, namely the conditional decree. Here plainly the proverb fits: "The pot was calling the kettle black."βBartholomew Mastrius
Vini retweeted
To be alt is to wear a hello kitty sweater as you paint your nails purple & white π«
Vini retweeted
Iβm embarrassed to admit I watched Season 5 in theaters with my spiritual directorβ¦
Vini retweeted
βSt. Thomas intended that principle, things which are the same as one third, are the same among themselves, only to ground the inference without exception, when the extremes are the same in reality, & by reason with the third: for if they were identified really, & by reason are distinguished from the third, they can import reasons opposed among themselves, & not opposed to the middle, and hence from the affirmation of the identity of the extremes with the middle, the identity of the extremes among themselves is not to be inferred, & to this he adduces the example of action, & passion, not because St. Thomas thinks that they are identified with motion really, or formally, & are distinguished really, & formally among themselves, but because these premises are conceded absolutely, action is motion, passion is motion, & yet this conclusion is denied absolutely, action is passion, & this therefore, because passion expresses the relation of the patient as in this, action expresses the relation to the agent as from which, motion however does not express that distinction: whence although the difference of action, & passion from motion, is as great as that which obtains between action, & passion; because nevertheless action, & passion in their signification express that difference, motion however does not state it in its signification, but abstracts from the relation of action, & passion this is denied absolutely, action is passion, that however is conceded absolutely, action is motion, passion is motion, & so the consequence does not hold on account of the distinction of reason, of action, & passion from motion, & in this the example holds.β
β Pedro de Godoy, O.P.
Vini retweeted
π§΅βA thread. I am sick and tired of the libel and infinite calumnies against the venerable Cajetan. Especially regarding his exchange with Luther that SUPPOSEDLY "caused the reformation."
Vini retweeted
One thing is more certain than death: the Reformation is NOT Augustinian, whether in epistemology, soteriology, or ecclesiology.
Vini retweeted
π§΅St. Augustine in the cited place [and elsewhere] must be understood of speaking of God's consequent will, and not the antecedent by which He formally wills the salvation of all men.
Vini retweeted
βThe consequent will belongs to the will of good pleasure, as is evident; but the antecedent willβfor example, the will to save absolutely all menβbelongs to the will of good pleasure, because it is found truly and properly in God.β
β Fr. Hugon, O.P., Tractatus Dogmatici, vol. I, tr. I, q. IX, a. III, n. II.
Vini retweeted
.@Aporome1225 and I still have an open debate offer for any EO willing to defend monopatrism by natural reason alone.
Bring as many people as you like. Weβre happy to do 2v2, 4v2, 6v2, or whatever arrangement.
Youβre a liar, by the way. Can you show me multiple posts that are actually his? Btw will you be open to discuss the Filioque tonight? Me and @BessyNic are challenging every EβOβ ( on the Filioque) but you Guys are silent all of a sudden.
Vini retweeted
βThose would justly be judged strongest in soul, who know most clearly both what is terrible and what is pleasant, and yet, because of this, do not shrink back from dangers.β
β Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book II, Ch. 40, Β§3.
.@Aporome1225 and I still have an open debate offer for any EO willing to defend monopatrism by natural reason alone.
Bring as many people as you like. Weβre happy to do 2v2, 4v2, 6v2, or whatever arrangement.
Youβre a liar, by the way. Can you show me multiple posts that are actually his? Btw will you be open to discuss the Filioque tonight? Me and @BessyNic are challenging every EβOβ ( on the Filioque) but you Guys are silent all of a sudden.
