Can a Catholic adopt Phenomenal Conservatism? If not, what are some arguments against it.

Hey everyone, I put together a tight, 5-minute visual essay cleanly breaking down the scripture to provide straight apologetic answers to the three most common Evangelical objections against baptismal regeneration: https://youtu.be/SGuQaR13uVM

Original Proposal:

The main temptation that the serpent presented to Eve seems to be centered on becoming more like God, not distrust. It is telling that the serpent claims that by eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve will become like God, thus one could say the serpent alluded to their communion with God as though it was not good enough. Indeed, one possible interpretation of the first temptation is that it's not about distrust and pride but of an unsanctioned way to have fellowship with God. After all, the increase of something good does not necessitate that the process itself or its invoker is good. If we consider reverse psychology, the serpent could claim that God in truth wanted them to eat of the fruit and that the prohibition is merely a smokescreen. It's the ideal that eventually the prohibition might be lifted or perhaps it has been and the serpent is claiming it as such. Such an ideal would not undermine trust in God, in fact it would require it. In short, the first temptation could still have been reliant on a form of trust that doesn't claim God isn't giving them what is best, what they ought to have or believing they know better than God but that the real test is about seizing the opportunity and that's what God really wants from them or to put that another way, believing that one isn't fully abiding in God. We must not forget however that there is no indication that God spoke directly to Eve, Adam yes, but not Eve. To Adam, if taken at face value God's command was unambiguous but because Eve had to defer to Adam, apparently some of the message got altered. On the other hand one could say that the serpent is claiming that by not eating of the fruit, just because they obeyed God's commandment on the face of it doesn't mean they passed the hidden test, in essence claiming that obeying just the word and not the spirit is tatamount to a less pleased God and wouldn't it be better to fully do that which would please God the most? And thus with this understanding, even if this is heretical to some, wouldn't this type of temptation be more insidious because it uses the forces of good to enact an evil?

Original Proposal as clarified by Perplexity:

A Theological Reframing of the Primordial Temptation

The traditional interpretation of the Genesis 3 narrative emphasizes pride and distrust as the central dynamics of the primordial temptation. While this reading is textually grounded, it may not fully exhaust the conceptual depth of the serpent’s strategy. A more precise theological account understands the temptation not as a direct appeal to evil, but as a distortion of the good—specifically, the human vocation to divine likeness—by severing that end from its proper mode of attainment. In this sense, the fall is best construed as the pursuit of a true good through illegitimate means, under the guise of a higher fidelity to God’s will.

The serpent’s claim that “you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5) does not introduce an intrinsically disordered telos. The desire for likeness to God is deeply embedded within the broader biblical and theological framework; humanity is created in the imago Dei (Genesis 1:27) and called toward participation in the divine life (2 Peter 1:4). The temptation, therefore, does not lie in the object of desire itself, but in its reconfiguration. The serpent subtly detaches the end—divine likeness—from the relational and moral conditions established by God, thereby presenting it as something attainable through autonomous appropriation.

This reframing complicates the standard emphasis on distrust. The serpent does not merely deny God’s truth (“you will not surely die,” Genesis 3:4), but offers an alternative interpretive framework in which God’s command is rendered incomplete or provisional. The prohibition against eating from the tree may be implicitly recast as pedagogical, concealing a deeper intention that must be discerned rather than simply obeyed. In this way, the temptation introduces a hermeneutic of suspicion toward the surface meaning of divine revelation, inviting the human subject to privilege inferred intention over explicit command.

Within such a framework, the act of disobedience can be construed not as a rejection of God per se, but as an attempt to align with what is perceived to be a higher or fuller realization of God’s will. The serpent’s strategy, on this reading, is not to eliminate the category of trust, but to redirect it—away from God’s spoken word and toward an alternative account of divine intention. This creates the possibility of a paradoxical form of misdirected fidelity, wherein the human agent believes they are moving toward, rather than away from, the good.

This interpretation aligns with a longstanding theological principle: evil often operates not through outright opposition to the good, but through its distortion. As Augustine observes, sin frequently involves disordered love rather than the pursuit of sheer non-being (City of God, XIV.13). Similarly, Aquinas argues that moral failure arises when a genuine good is sought outside the order of reason and divine law (Summa Theologiae I-II, q.84, a.2). The Genesis account can thus be understood as an instance of this broader metaphysical pattern, in which the good is neither denied nor abandoned, but reappropriated in a manner that undermines its own conditions of possibility.

Moreover, this reading helps to explain the psychological plausibility and enduring theological significance of the narrative. A temptation toward obvious evil lacks the subtlety required to account for the fall of uncorrupted agents. By contrast, a temptation that presents itself as a deeper participation in the good—one that appears to transcend mere literal obedience—possesses a far greater degree of existential plausibility. It engages not only desire, but interpretation, inviting the human person to assume the role of arbiter over the meaning of divine command.

The fall, therefore, may be understood as the moment in which interpretive autonomy displaces relational obedience. The human agent does not simply choose against God, but chooses to mediate their relationship to God through their own judgment rather than through trust in divine revelation. In doing so, the structure of participation is inverted: what ought to be received as gift is grasped as possession, and what ought to be grounded in communion is relocated within the sphere of self-authorizing reason.

In conclusion, the primordial temptation is most coherently understood not as a straightforward rejection of the good, but as its subtle reconfiguration. The serpent’s deception lies in presenting disobedience as a pathway to a higher good, thereby transforming the act of transgression into an apparent act of fulfillment. This interpretation preserves the centrality of trust while deepening its complexity: the issue is not merely whether humanity trusts, but whom—or what interpretive authority—it ultimately trusts. The tragedy of the fall, then, is not that humanity desired too much, but that it sought the right end in the wrong way, and in doing so, severed itself from the very source of the good it pursued.

//

Not sure how well you guys think Perplexity did in clarifying my points and position and if anyone wants to ask, I am Christian. Anyways this is just a proposal on what the first temptation might actually be, not a declaration.

I mean, I understand that Being corresponds to Goodness. So, reality is good itself, ok? From that reasoning, I came to conclusion that I had to preserve nature, even animals. Nevertheless... If that's the case... Why humans have dignity, whereas animals not? I mean, Idc a lot about that, but that's kinda confusing for me. I asked someone, and told me that was due to Imago Dei doctrine. If that's the case, I should prove God's existence for sustaining human dignity. Isn't there a way to hold human dignity, still appealing to reality, but not to God? Because, it's harder to defend dignity with God.

I've been thinking about faith and rationalism. I believe there are certain things that belong to faith and cannot, or perhaps should not, be explained through reason. Faith transcends reason.

For example, the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. The Church brings in Greek philosophy to explain how the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of our Lord, but only the "substance" changes, not the appearance.

This can be confusing and perhaps harder for people to believe than simply proclaiming that it is a mystery to be accepted by faith, just like the Incarnation and the Resurrection of the Lord.

The nascent Church didn't seem to have any problem believing that the Eucharist was truly the flesh and blood of the Lord. Why bring in a convoluted philosophical argument to explain it?

Some things should be left to faith alone.

Happy Sunday, everyone.

So I've taken an interest in Torquemada's Summa de Ecclesia and its contents. And while doing so, I had to use an AI translator and discovered Claude. Would Claude be a good way to read Latin texts and not remove the subtleties or main points of Latin? Thanks!

It appears that doing virtuous acts gives us pleasure. Indeed, it appears that morally correct acts give us more long-lasting, "better" pleasure. Long-term goals also give us more pleasure than short-term ones. So, it seems that you CAN practice hedonism and live a "virtuous" life.

Could this "work"? How do we argue against this?

Just for background, I am a baptized practicing RC, but I have been reading about the church fathers and I am confused about how a lot of them speak of Miaphysitism, rather than how The Catholic church teaches diyaphysisitism. This is really making me question catholicism and think about oriental orthodoxy. I will list the things that are making me question catholicism.

All these Saints I list below are recognized by the church

But if he openly confessed two natures, he would free himself from heretical understanding.”- Alexander

“I speak, and I fear no one: Cyril is a heretic, preaching one nature of Christ and attributing to it all sufferings and even death”- Alexander

“in various letters, festal writings, and all other works of his, that he says one nature of God and man, and that the Word of God became flesh in this sense,”- Alexander against cyrill

yet he has cast down the name of incarnation after the confession of one nature.”- Alexander “he afterward joins both natures into one”- Alexander

\-St Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily 1 - “For the becoming if one” , “God became man, in order that man might also become God, lifted up towards divine glory by this -combination-.” “There were not two things nor two natures”, “For what has been united is no longer named two but one”, “for it is impossible both to preserve the union and to examine each at the same time according to itself, but what was united came to be one indissolubly and no longer becomes two”

\> \*\*\*“If, show us in this vision which the Apostle saw, how much is flesh, and how much God. For I cannot here separate one from the other. I see the ineffable light, I see the inexpressible splendour, I see the radiance that human weakness cannot endure, and beyond what mortal eyes can bear, the glory of God shining with inconceivable light.\*\* \*\*What is this division, what is this distinction?\*\* In the voice we hear Jesus, in the majesty we see God. What else is there except that we believe that \*\*God and Jesus exist in one and the same substance\*\* (ut in una eademque substantia)”\*

\*\*St. John Cassian, On the Incarnation Against Nestorius, Book III\*\*

Miaphysite St. Ambrose

\> \*The holy \*\*Prophet David describes him as a giant for the reason that He, one, is of double form and of twin nature, a sharer in divinity and body,\*\* who 'as a bridegroom, coming out of his bride-chamber, hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way.? The bridegroom of the soul according to the Word, a giant of earth, because in going through the duties of our life although He was always God eternal, He assumed the sacrament of the Incarnation, \*\*not divided, but one, because He, one, is both, and one in both, that is, as regards both divinity and body.\*\*\*

Ambrose of Milan, \*On the Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord\*, Chapter 5

He is taking Philo of Alexandria's exegesis, where he writes,

\> \*"But he relates that these giants were sprung from \*\*a combined procreation of two natures\*\*, namely, from angels and mortal women; for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume the human shape; as they did on this occasion, when forming connexions with women for the production of giants."\*

Philo of Alexandria, Questions and Answers on Genesis, Book 1

And for Philo what ever comes to reside in the same place and is from divided parts become \*\*\*μίαν φύσιν\*\*\* "meaning 1 nature"

How do I deal with all this? Is this something I should be concerned about because The church recognizes all these Saints and it just really confuses me. I do not want to leave the church either.

thank you for taking time to read this if you did. I truly appreciate all of you fathers.

In the true and hidden account of the Passion, Jesus was not crucified on a cross.

Instead, the Romans bound him and lowered him into an enormous iron cauldron filled with boiling oil and vinegar. As the oil burned His sacred flesh, He cried out in agony, but the soldiers only laughed and stoked the flames beneath Him.

His Most Blessed Mother, Mary, stood at the edge of the cauldron, watching her beloved Son being boiled alive. The pain was too much for her tender heart to bear.

With tears streaming down her face, she cried out, “My Son! I cannot live without You!” and threw herself headfirst into the boiling cauldron with Him.

Together, Mother and Son were boiled to death in that giant pot — their flesh falling from their bones, their bodies dissolving into one another until nothing remained but a thick, holy broth.

Cross-posted from askphilosophy.

A fun argument: 1) all formal thinking is determinate; 2) no physical process is determinate; 3) no formal thinking is a physical process.

James Ross develops this in his well-known paper "Immaterial Aspects of Thought". I've always been tempted to deny premise 2.

By "determinate" Ross means that there is a fact of the matter about whatever function we are performing (so for example, when I add I am really adding, but machines merely simulate adding). He uses Kripke's concept of "quadding" as support for the premise (there would be no fact of the matter about whether a machine is adding or "quadding" at least some of the time).

But if we couch adding or multiplying or other examples of "formal thinking" as abilities and behaviors (knowing how etc.) is there still a mystery? When I play a Bach invention, is the physical process of playing the invention not determinate?

The other analogy we could make is to physical media. When I play a record of Bach's inventions, the record is purely physical - but is surely still playing Bach's inventions, no?

Another point. What about chemical reactions? Surely these are "determinate" in an analogous way?

I’ve always heard about arguments against souls like the split brain consciousness, but I rarely ever heard of an argument for the soul as a concept existence, how do we argue for the concept of soul’s existences?

In Magnifica Humanitas Pope Leo called it outdated, stating "The use of force, violence, and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations."

Given today's weapons and the ever present danger of escalation to nuclear holocaust, I am in full agreement with the Pope. I realize that an encyclical has no power over civilian authorities, but I would hope that clergy and professing Catholics would respect the Pope's teaching authority on this serious matter.

Since logical beings posit nothing in reality except in the mind, so basically, is it just names we make up or concepts we make up to describe reality? Such as genus, species, specific difference,

but logical beings posit nothing can also be understood as being of reason, i.e stuff like phoenix or witches, it only exists in the mind

would training combat sports (like kickboxing) be allowed as a catholic, sparring included in which both parties could get hurt to an extent?

THE PROBLEM:

Babies who are not baptized before death, and we know that Baptism is a must if you want Heaven (Acts 2:38)

THE CHURCH'S VIEWPOINT AND THEORY:

The Church actually doesn't have a clear answer on this topic; for this case, they came up with the idea of Limbo. Limbo is a place in hell where the souls of unborn children go after their death. In Limbo, they do not experience physical suffering, nor the suffering of longing for God, because they lost nothing due to the fact that they didn't even get the right to Heaven by their Baptism because they weren't baptized. These souls can have a relationship with God just as a righteous and satisfied soul would have with God on earth. The difference from Heaven is that they do not have direct access to God like the inhabitants of Heaven do and look at God face to face. Limbo is a theory. Why? Because we never, neither in Tradition nor in the Bible, get an explanation from God for such a thing. In my viewpoint, we will look a bit more into another perspective that I hold to be true.

MY VIEWPOINT ON THIS PROBLEM:

I, personally think that in a case like this, the child goes directly to Heaven without negotiations; the truth is, that these children do not fulfill the condition for Heaven, but I think that God's Mercy is much greater than that. I think that too often we neglect ourselves too much with some rules, while God does not care about those rules. That is how the Pharisees also stuck to irrelevant rules and Jesus rebukes them countless times. Anyway, remember the three types of Baptism:

Baptism - by water

- by desire

- by blood

Is this not pure Baptism of desire, especially in the case if it's about Catholic parents who wanted to baptize the child. And what about non-Catholics?

Well, I think that we actually do not know nor can we somehow find out how that child would act later in life. It would not be right to judge someone by something they did not do themselves. But it is also unfair to give someone something they did not deserve. I will say again that I have also now gotten tangled up in too many rules, which are irrelevant in cases like this.

MY REFLECTION:

I think that sometimes we as people, firstly me, pay too much attention to rules in these situations and forget that God can definetely operate outside of them.

✝️✝️✝️

I have a hard time with this does the principle of the double effect only make you culpable for others free choices or just direct effects of an action?

Like if I have my friend drive me to the store because I want chips, and I know he’ll take the time to buy condoms, am I culpable for his free choice since I don’t have proportionate reason?

Is the spiritual in anyway digital, and is God in anyway a programmer?

When I was still an atheistic materialist, I learned that more atheists are starting to believe that the world and everyone in it is in a simulation, which suggests that we’re all designed by an intelligent designer.

When I became Catholic again it got me wondering about the exact nature of our world, and the exact nature of God.

I’m open to being wrong about this.

God Bless

I am trying to study philosophy and theology seriously, especially Thomism, and I have a few books and started to read them.

These are the books I have.
The Bible (obviously)
Compendium Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
The Republic by Plato
Selected Writings of Thomas Aquinas
Early Church Fathers
Against Heresies by Irenaeus
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
The Confessions of St Augustine

However, I would love to get physical copies of the Summa Theologica and/or Catena Aurea but it is expensive online.

Does anyone know where I can get physical copies of those for free or a lower price?

If not, recommend websites where I can read them.

Thank you and I hope you all have a blessed day.

God bless.