Alexamenos

Roman Catholicism/ Bañezian Thomism

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus Again you are using scholastic philosophy without understanding it. in ratio The essence doesn’t enter another domain. It accounts for another domain and accounts for the objects in that domain.

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@saint_trae35891 it was a joke obviously.

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

St Thomas Aquinas a Banezian atp

[Astro @ViaEximii]

Refutation of St. Thomas's distinction between God's causing of the act of sinning vs. causing the sin which is a defect implied therein. The Angelic Doctor believes that God causes the former, but not the latter using the famous example of a crooked leg, but does it really work?

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus Well the fact that the lovable content is modified via generation is denied by me. So i don’t know what you are really critiquing or who you are referring to lol

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus Thats ST I Q39 a5

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus Aquinas does answer the question regarding the possibility of essential names standing for persons(in the notional domain) in ratio, and the answer is negative

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus Again ,you denied that productive intellection is an extension, hence no even if I affirm productive intellection as a condition for something else, it can’t be considered an extension. We are just repeating the same points

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus You just repeated your point dude, in ratio what is had by the image is alr had by the archetype but the modes of the image and the archetype are different , the notional domain can embrace only notions, hence only those in that mode, hence only the image.

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus In ratio essence doesn’t enter the domain but accounts for it and for the Notion which is needed in the domain to speak of volition, lol. that’s what happens when EO wants to embrace scholastic terminology and philosophy.

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus I agree with the former, but it is irrelevant as we are not arguing for the need of a more determined content but for a content in the mode of notions, the essence cannot be considered that notion in ratio.

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus When speaking of the notional domain

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@CuriousDan386 Specifically that The Father gave birth out of the essence of his nature to the Son

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

The lore is true🤯.

[Curious Dan @CuriousDan386]

@Alexamenos__ @monachus_iners @032ilysm Because your entire frame of mind is just plain false,lol.Caths' arguments are transparent as glass,you still think you can "thomistically" reach "and the Son" when the Father specifically prevent this because of their explicit claims about the frame of mind regarding the essence

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@CuriousDan386 I’m asking what does the statement mean, according to your understanding

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus Again It doesn’t matter that the content is alr had essentially if it can’t be reached notionally

[Alexamenos @Alexamenos__]

@katofklysm @LukasNectarios @sivartus No the essence doesn’t pertain to the domain of notions, it accounts for it. bruh