DoorDash Thomist

If you haven’t seen my latest video on the topic of justification, what are you doing with your life?

3 weeks ago | [YT] | 14

DoorDash Thomist

Dare I say one of my better videos, therefore it is one of my worst performing videos. If you haven’t seen my latest video on transub, check it out!

1 month ago | [YT] | 22

DoorDash Thomist

New Substack article on the impossibility of salvation for atheists, link to the article in the comment section.

2 months ago | [YT] | 49

DoorDash Thomist

Definitely had some laughs watching this video, and Eamonn is a great guy to talk to. Subscribe to his channel!

2 months ago | [YT] | 16

DoorDash Thomist

Thanks to all my supporters for 3k subs! I’m working on my script presenting the Catholic model of the atonement, and hope to put out a video by the end of the week. I’ve just been procrastinating due to a really bad headache.

Skip the Carousel

1 2

2 months ago | [YT] | 59

DoorDash Thomist

I wanted to make a quick follow up post as my accuser has been bringing forward a citation from St. Thomas to argue that I am guilty of sacrilege.

“Violation here means any kind of irreverence or dishonor. Now as ‘honor is in the person who honors and not in the one who is honored’ (Ethic. i, 5), so again irreverence is in the person who behaves irreverently even though he do no harm to the object of his irreverence. Hence, so far he is concerned, he violates the sacred thing, though the latter be not violated in itself.” (ST.II-II.Q99.A1.Rep3)

The key phrase to parce out here is “the object of his irreverence” as object denotes the recipient of an act and its telos i.e final cause. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who watches my stream that as the agent my act was directed towards the camera, i.e the object of the act. Furthermore, let’s cite the objection St. Thomas is responding to in order to understand what the Angelic Doctor is responding to.

“Further, God's power is greater than man's. Now sacred things receive their sacred character from God. Therefore they cannot be violated by man: and so a sacrilege would not seem to be the violation of a sacred thing.” (ST.II-II.Q99.A1.Obj3)

Keep in mind the question of the article is “Whether sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing?”. The objection confuses where the dishonor lies in, it seems to suggest that it is in the image, and since images receive their sacred character from God, and God is immutable, ergo. But just as honor lies in man, and the affections given to a sacred image are reflected to the prototype, this also is the case with dishonor. But once again anyone who watched my stream knows that the act in question was not directed towards an object consecrated to God, and my room is not consecrated to divine worship so it would not fall under local sacrilege. The key distinction is that an act of sacrilege is a violation quoad nos (with respect to us), not quoad se (with respect to itself), as God is immutable. Anyone who has any remote familiarity with scholastic philosophy would be able to explain this. I am willing to admit my behavior was imprudent, but it is slanderous to accuse me of sacrilege for what I did.

2 months ago | [YT] | 39

DoorDash Thomist

As it is quite the accusation to say that someone has “publicized sacrilege” I felt the need to respond. For an act of sacrilege to be specified as such, the agent has to direct the act towards the object that is consecrated to God. Theologians distinguish between three species of sacrilege: local (the act of sacrilege occurs in a holy place), personal (the act of sacrilege is directed towards an individual consecrated to God), and real (the act of sacrilege is directed towards a consecrated object). My room would not fall under local sacrilege as it is not a dedicated place of worship like a Church. By this moron’s logic, a married couple who copulates in a room with sacred images and a crucifix are guilty of sacrilege. While it was certainly imprudent of me to flip the bird in a public livestream while vibing to a goofy song, accusing me of sacrilege is crazy. Flipping the bird in a room with a crucifix in it is not the same as directing such an act towards the crucifix, as my room is not a place that would fall under local sacrilege if such an act occurred in the space of my room. I honestly don’t blame Protestants for accusing Catholics of superstition when uneducated individuals go around making claims such as this.

“Sacrilege is a violation of a sacred thing, this is of a consecrated divine cult, and it is a mortal sin by its nature, if a work is specially opposed with the sanctity of the thing; but not if it is only generally opposed, in the way that all mortal sins are generally opposed to sanctity, eg. of a church, so that there they are committed with every venial sin. Moreover, a sacrilege is threefold: Personal, in which a person; local, in which a place, and real, in which other things are violated.”
(St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Bk. 4, Ch. 2, Dub. 2, n. 33)

Skip the Carousel

1 2

2 months ago (edited) | [YT] | 63

DoorDash Thomist

Fr. Matthias Joseph Scheeben:

“The Passion of Christ preceding His death, insofar as it was purely bodily, was likewise a violent suffering, but at the same time a Passion that was augmented and intensified by interior pains that were freely produced. Generally, according to the account of Sacred Scripture, so many external and internal causes of different kinds cooperated in Christ’s Passion that we can say:

1) just as Christ endured all kinds of suffering formally or virtually according to the object or the kind of the suffering, so too He suffered in all the members of His body, in all His senses, and in all the powers of His soul, and His Passion was thus objectively and subjectively as general and comprehensive a suffering as any human suffering can be in the present life, despite the perfect union of His soul with God and the perfect order of the powers of His soul. In particular Christ formally endured all species, if not all subspecies also, of bodily and spiritual sufferings, which can be inflicted from outside by human beings and in which all bodily pains resulting from sicknesses are contained virtually or equivalently. On the other hand He was not allowed and was not able to endure those spiritual sufferings which are based on uncertainty about God’s graciousness or about the outcome of the suffering, much less those which include the awareness of being hated by God, despair, and the like.

Moreover, 2) according to the unanimous teaching of the saints and the theologians, it should be taken as certain that the pain of Christ’s Passion in its degree was not only extraordinarily great in the first place, but absolutely the greatest that a human being in the present life ever experienced or could yet experience. This is certain and obvious relative to the sorrow of His soul over the sins of the whole world as an evil for God and for mankind, since this sorrow was proportionate to His most perfect knowledge of the infinite magnitude of this evil and to the incomparable magnitude of His holiness and love and hence without a doubt was greater than the pain of remorse of any human being whatsoever (and indeed not only on earth but also in Purgatory), and also than any other pain of soul which can be felt by human beings on earth.

On the other hand it is not so obvious and certain that the bodily pain of Christ too in itself was greater than any human pain in the present life, much less just as great as the poena sensus [pain of sense] in the damned. Nonetheless the first hypothesis can be accepted with good reasons. It follows in particular already from the external causes of Christ’s bodily suffering, from His interior disposition toward it, and from the repercussions of His spiritual sufferings on His physical ones. Furthermore, though, it follows also from the final causes of Christ’s Passion, which was supposed to be the comprehensively most perfect reparation for sin, the most effectively deterrent picture of its culpability, the supreme pledge of divine love, and the most perfect example of fortitude and patience in suffering. Precisely these final causes explain at the same time also the suitability of the extent and of the diversity of Christ’s sufferings.”

(Handbook Of Catholic Dogmatics Vol. 5.2, Ch. 3, §257, n. 1197)

2 months ago | [YT] | 94

DoorDash Thomist

Fr. Francisco Suarez:

“Firstly, I say: Christ endured only those human sufferings that could in a natural manner be inflicted upon him by men. Hence the devil was not permitted to torment Christ at his own will and pleasure, but was only permitted to afflict him through evil men as much as he could and wished: This is your hour and the power of darkness (Luke 22:53). Therefore he endured only those kinds of suffering that human malice and force could inflict. But within this kind of suffering, he endured in a manner all those sufferings that any man can undergo when inflicted by human industry—namely in every exterior part of the body, in all the senses, in sorrow of soul, in reputation, in honor, from friends, from enemies, from kinsmen, from
strangers, from Jews, from Gentiles, and so forth. Hence, secondly, I say: the sorrow over all the sins of men in Christ was more vehement and intense than it has ever been in anyone, or could be in any other man according to the ordinary power of God, because Christ sorrowed over all the sins of men taken together and perfectly considered: no one has ever so clearly known their malice, no one has loved God with so great a charity, no one has had such great grace for detesting sin, and so forth. Thirdly, I say: the sorrow that Christ had over the evils he suffered was not so vehement, as regards its object, as the sorrow of the damned concerning their state and eternal perdition—because the sorrow of the damned is over an evil of punishment of a higher order and nature, namely the loss of eternal beatitude, whereas the sorrow of Christ was over a temporal and human evil. Indeed, it appears that the sorrow of the damned is more intense than this sorrow of Christ. But if this sorrow of Christ is compared with every other human sorrow that can be conceived over human and temporal evils, it was far more intense and bitter; hence he said: My soul is sorrowful even unto death (Matthew 26:38), representing to himself his most bitter death and all his torments. Then in the course of the passion it was still further increased, and finally at the cross appears to have reached its highest degree, as these words indicate: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46.) Fourthly, I say: the sensible pain that Christ suffered in his head, hands, feet, or even his whole body, when compared with other such pains suffered by any men, was far more intense than those and the greatest of all that can occur according to the ordinary power of God. For the wounds were most severe, the constitution of the body was supremely sensitive to pain, and Christ himself did not impede the causes of this pain. Yet this pain was less than the pain of sense in hell, which is of another nature and order as sustained by spirits; and indeed less also than the pain of sense in purgatory.”

(De Mysteria Vitae Christi, Disp. 33, §1-2)

Skip the Carousel

1 2

2 months ago | [YT] | 69

DoorDash Thomist

I recently watched ‪@shamelesspopery‬‘s video “refuting” Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and I found his presentation of St. Thomas’s doctrine of the atonement to be quite lackluster. Would anyone be interested in a stream where I explain why? I will eventually make a video covering the Angelic Doctor’s doctrine of the atonement.

https://youtu.be/nULsSCGl2wI?si=zP3xS...

3 months ago | [YT] | 88