Bishop Barron on St. Thomas Aquinas

Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Bishop Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit www.wordonfire....

[@BishopBarron]

@butternutsquashist Thomas indeed loved science; but he didn't reduce all knowledge to science. He knew that there are other intellectual disciplines, including mathematics, philosophy, and theology, which follow their own methods but which are no less rational than the sciences. And he would not--as you do--drive a wedge between faith and reason; and he did indeed think that God's existence can be proven through arguments from contingency.

[@benjaminlarkey8562]

The Bishop articulates a major reason this Protestant is very much attracted to Catholicism.

[@BishopBarron]

Benjamin Larkey God bless you in your journey.

[@RGTomoenage11]

Benjamin Larkey come home brother

[@catholicrenewed6928]

Come Home hermano, blessings (:

[@bobmeoff1137]

Yet "fair-minded" Protestants ought not forget the "Church's" exclusivity stated by the Council of Trent...."there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." This pervasive Triumphalism throughout Catholic thought feeds its systemic false pride, and sets up its own clergy for great falls. I know why I am a Protestant.

[@Skadi609]

@@lobsterbobable You know that there are pastors that abused children?

[@BishopBarron]

It doesn't. To know is to bring one's mind correctly into conformity with reality. I'm just quarreling with your assertion that knowledge is limited to scientific knowledge. I'm arguing that poetry, literature, intuition, and philosophy can render real knowledge. Science cannot pronounce on the nature of the good or what makes something beautiful or what constitutes a just society or why there is something rather than nothing.

[@QMPhilosophe]

I teach a course in a Catholic University that discusses the various ways in which Science, Culture, and Religion have influenced each other from Aristotle to the present day. We are currently discussing Aquinas's grand synthesis of Catholic theology and Aristotle's philosophy. Your comments here are really helpful - thank you for taking the time to post them.

[@Yankees94]

I have always been Catholic, but Father Barron, by the grace of God you have given me a sense of the reality of God through the contingency concept. God is not an item in the world! God is not one true, good, loving and just thing, God is il Puro atto di Essere stessa. God is Being itself! That is why the universe should exist at all!

[@BishopBarron]

Amen!

[@Yankees94]

It has been said that "if I am free, then God does not exist". But I will turn that right around and say that I am free because of God. God by is very nature is Freedom itself, in which I find my deepest freedom. Their would be no free human beings if it wasn't for that reality who is "to be" itself.

[@r.c4914]

David Viscuso exactly what I was saying and the human race wouldn't exist without god or at very least we would been slaves..

[@r.c4914]

@@lobsterbobable I missed read vicuso, off course I do believe in God he created man and everything .

[@calvinpeterson9581]

@@Yankees94 Are you pantheistic?

[@BishopBarron]

We use philosophical criteria. Nature of the act, motive, intention, consequences, etc. And for justice, take a good long look at Plato's Republic: it is dedicated to the adjudication of precisely this question.

[@mllohman]

Father, I came across your video's and can't stop watching them. WOW. They are fantastic. I have been emailing them to a lot of friends and relatives. I want to thank you for doing this. It has made me so happy and given me so much peace. keep them coming.

[@BishopBarron]

@Mrmentalmadness123 I mean truths having to do with God and God's dealings with the world. The ground for these claims is metaphysical, psychological, and historical. The problem is that you're using "evidence" in such a narrow, restricted sense, designating basically physical traces and the results of experiments.

[@joaquinmejia4717]

St. Thomas Aquinas is, personally, one of my favorite saints. He is a very inspiring theologian and writer. The oldest university in Asia is named after him.

[@studiosnch]

University of Sto. Tomas in Manila, Philippines, or to call it properly, "The Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas, the Catholic University of the Philippines". But funny enough, it was only granted its autonomy I think centuries after its establishment.

[@st0ckk242]

I used to go there for checkup but because of this pandemic, I am not able to. The doctors and nurses there are professional and take a good care of you. I used to attend mass there also

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

He was a pagan

[@Compulsive-Elk7103]

​@@TheGuiltsOfUsno, no he isn't you heretic

[@BishopBarron]

But you have to be much more specific. The major categories that Thomas was using were potency and act. These are metaphysical terms, not physical or scientific terms, in the modern sense. Therefore, I don't see how the development of the empirical sciences affects them in any way. Show me precisely how Thomas got the "wrong answers" through his proof.

[@ironerrow618]

Honestly this is such a beautiful video. I’m losing it everywhere. 😩

[@BishopBarron]

He doesn't assume it; he proves it, precisely through the use of the categories of potency and act. To move, on Aquinas's reading, means to make the transition from potency to act. To be moved, a thing must be in potency and to cause motion, a thing must be in act. Therefore we can conclude that nothing can move itself, since nothing can be, simultaneously, in potency and act in the same respect.

[@BishopBarron]

Oh come on, John! I answered you over and over again.

[@BishopBarron]

Sure I did. I told you that the suppression of a first cause entails the suppression of all subsequent causes and hence the negation of the contingent event right in front of us. I think I added something like "the multiplication of zero even by infinity never adds up to anything but zero."

[@BishopBarron]

@symplythebest No. It's based upon a rational argument. Contingent things can be explained only through recourse, finally, to some reality which is not contingent, which exists through the power of its own essence. This is what Catholic theology means by "God."

[@BishopBarron]

@Mrmentalmadness123 No it can't! Not to a degree of certitude. There is always a dimension of belief in anything we claim to know. The same is true in regard to religious claims. We come to know them through a combination of faith and reason.

[@BishopBarron]

God bless you for that! Please keep me in prayer.

[@BishopBarron]

Not a real argument in sight, I'm afraid. And there is nothing "silly" about the mathematical comparison. No matter how many contingent causes you string together--even to infinity--they don't add up to a real explanation, since each one depends on a previous cause. Suppress the first cause and you suppress the others. Please answer that point. Otherwise, John, you're just blowing smoke.

[@KinemaReviews]

One can see how excited Bishop Robert Barron is when talking about St Thomas

[@BishopBarron]

you're just talking about the biological processes that accompany our subjective appropriation of the beautiful. But that doesn't begin to address the properly philosophical question of what the beautiful is in itself, objectively. What I find amusing is that I'm supposed to be the dogmatist and you are clinging so tenaciously to your empiricist dogma!

[@BishopBarron]

All he is endeavoring to prove is that a first unmoved mover exists. I would argue that he has successfully done that. It then takes him hundreds of more pages and dozens of more arguments to demonstrate that this prime mover has all of the characteristics that we associate with God.

[@BishopBarron]

I agree with you: science is the best way to know the fucntioning of the empirical world. But science has nothing to say about the nature of the good, the nature of the beautiful, what constitutes a just society, how to determine the difference between moral and immoral acts. Come on: you can't limit everything to the sciences, no matter how successful they have been within their limited purview.

[@BishopBarron]

I already said that priests don't forgive sins; only God does. But he does so through the instrumentality of the priest.

[@BishopBarron]

Sure gravity moves the golf ball. Now what constitutes gravity? What are the conditions for its possibility? What explains it adequately? We look for other causes. What can't go on indefinitely is that process. We have to come finally to a self-explaining explanatory cause. That's what I mean by "God."

[@BishopBarron]

You're missing the point. Multiply contingent causes all you want, they're still contingent causes. Which is another way of saying that they don't explain anything.

[@BishopBarron]

Well, then you're conceding the point! Sure, the chain of contingent causes can be as long as you want--as long as it ends with a prime mover or first cause. God can and does use as many secondary causes as he wants, but you can't say that the chain is infinite, for that would remove a first element, which removes all explanatory value.

[@BishopBarron]

Because knowledge is not limited to the sciences!!!! Do you ever read poetry or history or philosophy?

[@BishopBarron]

I couldn't agree more. So show me precisely where you think the argument from contingency is untruthful. I've answered every objection you've raised so far.

[@BishopBarron]

When you know and truly understand that 2 + 2 = 4, you have stepped out of a purely empirical world. You have grasped a time and space transcending truth.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

Especially once you understand that 2 + 2 = 100 as well (when counting in a binary numeral system instead of a decimal numeral system). It's why next to Thomas I'm very appreciative of Plato who argued that becoming better at mathematics is a good way to prepare for philosophy.

[@BishopBarron]

@Mrmentalmadness123 Honestly, how would you feel if I offered crude caricatures of scientific theories and then, on the basis of those caricatures, rejected all science as silly? Wouldn't you tell me to get a little better education in the sciences? I'm just saying that your question was not a good one, since it was predicated on such an inadequate sense of what religion really is.

[@BishopBarron]

@symplythebest I think that the argument for a non-contingent ground of contingency is logically valid, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise. Show me precisely why this argument fails.

[@TheDesertRat31]

My science education (archeology, Paleoanthropology, evolution, geology as well as physics and biology), in college, deepened my faith in God and my sense of awe in His creation.

[@BishopBarron]

Well he is indeed proving that God exists, but you have to have the patience to read beyond the demonstration itself in order to get this. Tell me, precisely, where the argument is invalid. Just a few postings ago, you were sighing in disbelief that I was making this argument, but you haven't even come close to answering it in a coherent way.

[@BishopBarron]

It's not a matter of time but of ontology. There can't be an infinite regress of conditioned causes, precisely because the suppression of a first cause implies the negation of the entire line of subsequent causes. To say that an infinite series of dependent causes adequately explains a present state of affairs is a bit like saying that 1,000,000 X zero is anything but zero.

[@BishopBarron]

The rest of the first part of the Summa is Thomas's demonstration that the prime mover (properly and fully understood) truly is the God spoken of in the Bible. The argument itself can't bear all of this weight. But I'm gathering from your remarks that you find no logical problem with the demonstration in itself.

[@BishopBarron]

Tell me precisely which scientific experiments you performed or which empirical observations you made to verify your sweeping metaphysical claim that "facts are limited to science?" Like all logical positivists, you are hoisted, I'm afraid, on your own petard.

[@BishopBarron]

But you haven't shown it! With Thomas Aquinas, I say that an infinite regress of contingent causes finally explains nothing. That's why we have to posit some unconditioned or non-contingent ground of contingency.

[@BishopBarron]

@alifeofreason Evidence? Arguments? Or just more name-calling? I'm no longer surprised that so many of the "new" atheists rely on the crudest and most casual forms of discourse.

[@BishopBarron]

Oh give me a break! I referenced the unity of truth in order to show how Aquinas overcomes any split between faith and reason. Religious truth is one, but it is participated in to varying degrees by the many religions. It's not an either/or proposition. There are many aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. that are true.

[@BishopBarron]

@symplythebest No! God is the only valid answer to the question concerning the actual existence of a contingent universe.

[@BishopBarron]

@butternutsquashist Thanks! Faith and reason proceed from the same source, which is the intense desire to see the truth. But some truths, the highest truths in fact, are given more than discovered. That's the basic difference, it seems to me.

[@TGAW]

Thank you for this, Fr. Barron! I watched it about two years ago, and it spurred me to reconsider God and Catholicism seriously. (I had lapsed into something of a lazy agnosticism, though I was raised Catholic.) Since then, I've been studying Thomism on my own with great vigor, and I must say that this system of thought has completely changed my whole life in many respects, especially my views on morality and metaphysics. Your video played a huge part in my eager return to the Church. God bless!

[@brucebarber4104]

Have you checked out the Thomistic Institute KZbin channel? Bishop Barron is who got me interested in St. Thomas Aquinas and the channel I mentioned is excellent. God Bless.

[@BishopBarron]

That's not a question of "caused causes" at all. Space can be divided up indefinitely, as can time. But none of that has a thing to do with the particular type of causal series I'm talking about.

[@naturalismforever3469]

Oh Robert, as I've explained to you again and again and again: "causality" has NO MEANING WHATEVER without the existence of space-time. And asking "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is precisely the same as asking: "What sound does purple make?" No wonder contemporary philosophers don't buy scholasticism, besides the fact that Tommy himself advocated the extermination of anyone who did not agree with the Roman church.

[@dfpolis]

@Daniel151jesus Human love is a dim reflection of Divine Love. We love one more or less because our finite resources make us set priorities. God has infinite resources & is fully committed to our whole being & good. Still, some have more being than others. Jesus has more Being than us as He is more than just human. Having more gifts might be seen as having more being & love, but God loves each completely. What else could God loving more even mean? Peace, Dennis

[@BishopBarron]

No. You're making a whole series of category mistakes, I'm afraid. God is not a being in or alongside the world. God is not a conditioned object who could ever in principle be analyzed by the physical sciences. "God" is the answer to the properly metaphysical question why is there something rather than nothing? You could argue in principle on metaphysical grounds that God does not exist, but it's simply a category mistake to say that "science" could either prove or disprove the proposition.

[@certifiedsadboi3387]

For my entire young life I have unknowingly followed the theological and Philosophical footsteps of the great St. Thomas Aquinas.

[@butternutsquashist]

@wordonfirevideo I do not think it is me that drives the wedge between reason and religion, I think other religious commentators do. Unlike your good self father not all religious people have thought deeply and rationally about their beliefs and can so eloquently discuss them as you do. I may not always agree with you but your arguments are always thought provoking and intelligible. Religion should embrace science and not see it as an adversary.

[@natalie-sy2ps]

Father Barron I cant stop watching your videos! They are so awesome. I really liked your contingency concept. It really moved me.

[@yankumar5280]

thanks for sharing Fr. Robert Barron

[@Miralukian]

To understand the role of a priest you must first know they are called by God to instruct the followers of Christ. One way to instruct is in the process of correcting your Sin. The priest is there to hold you accountable for your Sin. If this so occurs that you Sin before you pass and seek forgiveness then Jesus will attest to your character. Of course this can not occur if you do not accept Jesus into your heart, for how can he attest to your character if you never attempted to first know him?

[@cooliodraw2]

@symplythebest, in what way is it a myth that the universe knows itself because of us? Does the tabletop I am typing on know anything? What about the chair? The only way in which things can be known as logic, fact, reason is through rational beings. One such rational being is the human being. This is what makes us significant in the universe. If you think this a myth, then I don't even know where we hold common ground.

[@seefromthisangle]

It is God forgiving through the Priest, not the priest forgiving you. Check out James 5:16, "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." (NIV) so we are asking for God's forgiveness, but we are confessing it to the vicar of Christ. Christ's earthly representative. :)

[@Blakedenenny]

Father Barron, I'm sure you'll be glad to hear that I am taking "Thomas" as my confirmation name, as an ode to him

[@BishopBarron]

@Mrmentalmadness123 You don't know your parents were really your parents. You believe it, with motivation. You don't know that England is an island, you believe it with motivation. You don't know that there is a city in Colorado named Denver. You believe it with motivation. The same is true of religious truths.

[@BishopBarron]

@ndzoko Oy vey... Friend, tell me who your intellectual hero is. I guarantee you I can find some stupid things that he said. I mean, this exercise is like shooting fish in a barrel--and just as pointless. You have to look at the great themes and trajectories and patterns within a great thinker's thought and not pick out anomolous mistakes.

[@BishopBarron]

Sure, I agree with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that all knowledge begins in the senses. But it can't be reduced to what the empirical sciences can analyze. Otherwise, we jettison philosophy, art, poetry, etc. Religion is a close cousin of those latter disciplines.

[@BishopBarron]

@grunderlyme God made the world out of sheer love, out of the desire to share his life and goodness. But don't read this as "neediness" in the ordinary sense. Rather, bonum diffisivum sui (goodness is diffusive of itself). God's exuberance and joy are so intense that they naturally bubble over.

[@Western_TV]

what a gift Bishop Robert Barron is 🙏

[@BishopBarron]

Well of course God forgives sin, but he chooses to do so through the instrumentality of priests. The wisdom of this is grounded in the fact that we are not angels! We have bodies as well as souls, and therefore it is very important that forgiveness is given in a concrete and interpersonal way.

[@BishopBarron]

Jesus to Peter: "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And Jesus to all his disciples: "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven; if you hold them bound, they are held bound."

[@BishopBarron]

But there are many parts of the Summa that don't depend upon the Bible at all. Look at the first thirteen questions of the First Part. They are largely of a philosophical nature.

[@BishopBarron]

@Mrmentalmadness123 O come on, friend, give me a break! Read your original post to me and tell me, honestly, that you weren't presenting a crude (and rather mean-spirited) caricature of what Christians actually believe.

[@BishopBarron]

How about a real counter-argument? Show me precisely where you think the argument fails. Commenting on how "sad" you find my words, without making even the slightest attempt to refute them is, well,sad.

[@BishopBarron]

@Mrmentalmadness123 Friend, all I can ask you to do is to read some serious theology. Like a lot of those in the grip of scientism, you're operating out of a crude, fundamentalist sense of religion.

[@pacnik77]

ive been an amateur astronomer and never separated the 2 The stars declare the glory of God i love when kids look thru my telescope go oooooooooo wow

[@cloudfloating4706]

Another great video! I just received the next installment of the pivotal players. I can’t wait to see them and to read my Word on Fire Bible! The fire for truth is contagious. I Praise God for all Word on Fire and Bishop Barron have done.

[@BishopBarron]

@ndzoko Easy: he said that Jesus was simply a misguided eschatological prophet ground under by the wheel of history.

[@TheDesertRat31]

2:55-3:05. Wow Protestants, specifically evangelicals, really need to let that sink in. I'm afraid, however, that they would probably simply reject the idea out of hand.

[@triciamonica7854]

I admire your love for St Thomas Aquinas.... He has definitely been instrumental to set God's Word on Fire in your life.

[@BishopBarron]

And your point is...? That some priests are alcoholics? So what? I would suggest that you find another priest!

[@BishopBarron]

@VanessaTexasGal Well friend, you have to read the rest of the Summa! The arguments are just the beginning.

[@Eriu8]

In my opinion St. Thomas was the last great Philosopher! He brought all the sciences, including Theology, to a pinnacle and held them there masterfully in balance. Not even the most determined revolutionary or 'new age' scientist can come anywhere close to what he achieved!

[@BishopBarron]

G.K. Chesterton's book on Aquinas. Or for a more technical approach, F.C. Copleston's introduction.

[@pe.pablohenrique]

Great video, Father... Is there any specific book of your preference about Thomas Aquinas for beginners?

[@BishopBarron]

Take a look at mine: "Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master."

[@pe.pablohenrique]

Bishop Robert Barron Thank you, Your Excellency.

[@elzbietahapsburska3711]

1) Thank you for explaining the philosophy/theology of Thomas Acquinas. It really does help reconcile science and religion (by explaining why science and religion weren't in conflict to begin with) I have one question: you mentioned stem cell research at the end of your video. However, I've been a member of the pro life movement most of my life, and most of the pro lifers I met were ardent proponents of ADULT stem cell research as an alternative the immoral embroynic stem cell research . . .

[@supersmart671]

Bishop Barron has inspired me to study....

[@BishopBarron]

@Stitchman3875 Look in question 75 of the third part of the Summa theologiae.

[@ClassicPhilosophyFTW]

Excellent introduction to Aquinas can be found here, to any interested: www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top I should note that it is an intro to Aquinas' philosophy rather than theology. If that is what is sought, it will be found elsewhere. However, the two fields complement and inform each other. Still well worth reading.

[@TheCatholicLady]

@samuelsixvids psychology and Medicine do not declare it "normal" . . . reproductively speaking... it would be explained as "abnormal" I think what you are thinking is "acceptable" or "explainable"

[@seefromthisangle]

Hey again :) Yes they can be forgiven as long as you're sorry for them and have the intention of confessing them. God knows the heart. And no one says who goes to hell or who doesn't, we can't know this. Fr Barron even speaks about that subject. So I don't know what happens to other souls, I won't until the Last Judgement

[@kevinkhoo25]

Father Barron - any chance you could do a video on Saint Anthony of Padua too? Would be most grateful

[@SandraL024]

Fr. Barron is great!

[@BishopBarron]

I must confess, friend, I don't know quite what you're driving at here.

[@cloramurphy3838]

You are so enlightened ......wish everyone was such 👍

[@franklincamilo4753]

God is an unmade maker or the independent transcendent uncaused cause of all things which exist. If its made then we have to go and look at what made caused it. It just puts us back on the long loop Father Barron was talking about and that caused "God" wouldn't be God we would have to go even deeper to the uncaused cause which is what he means when he says God

[@tomieh18]

I'm truly blessed to have the namesake of such an amazing theologian and saint of the Church! Thomas Aquinas, pray for us :)

[@johnpro2847]

I hope Tom has a clean history sheet..being locked up in the praying institution his whole life does not sound very healthy to me..amen

[@OneCatholicSpeaks]

This is a fantastic video. I have always wondered why there is a need to claim that science disproves God. I see science as the study of God's work (in the physical). I admit, Fr. Barron, that I do some Catholic apologetics. You're one of my resources.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

Do you believe love is a truth? You cannot measure love. Do you believe being is truth? You cannot prove being. We cannot prove with empirical tests alone that we are anything more than, to use an old scenario, "brains in vats". On a more practical level, I imagine you have friends. Now, those friends do certain things. How do you know? They told you so, and you trust them. You did not observe their every move, but because of your relationship, you take them at their word. Is that "evidence"?

[@dfpolis]

@ndzoko Faith & doubt are compatible. Faith is a commitment. We can be committed while still having doubts we are trying to work through. Charity is not something separate. It is the expression of our commitment. That is why the choice between Faith or Works as the key to salvation is nonsense. You cannot be committed to God and not act committed by doing works. Works without commitment are works without love -- self-serving and empty. Peace, Dennis

[@ajessm]

Well said. What a great man and great philosopher and theologian was St Thomas Aquinas. It must have a moment of profound joy to be at his grave.

[@HumanbeingonfloatingEarth]

Thank you Bishop Barron

[@BishopBarron]

Well, you better be ready to have a really good argument!

[@Eriu8]

Excellent my thoughts on the great master exactly!!

[@BishopBarron]

Try my book Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master.

[@DeiCiviAgape]

If true, then they would support Bentham; but Bentham is an utilitarian who calculates the greatest good for the greatest number by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Aristotle and Aquinas claim goods greater than pleasure. Aristotle, contemplation; Aquinas, Beatific Vision of the Resurrection. Neither Hume nor Bentham can venture beyond natural reason. The political argument is prudential towards natural goods. What would Monarchism achieve?

[@wolf1750]

This argumentation is sooo cute! Do you know, how many people claimed (and claim!) to be incarnations of God? And how many of them performed (and perform!) so-called "miracles" for their believers? Are you watching the international news? Do you see, what is happening right now to countless innocent people? (earthquakes, tsunamies, floods, wars, cruelties against helpless children and women?) God lets this happen to "make the world more beautiful"? - GROTESQUE!

[@wolf1750]

At 1:37 you quote Aquinas: "Truth is ONE." The mere fact, that there are several world religions, that claim, that they (and ONLY they) know and preach the "truth" indicates, that possibly NONE OF THEM knows THE truth. - To personalize this: YOU probably think, that Catholicism advocates THE truth, because you were born in a family "Irish Catholic to the bone", as you so nicely put it elsewhere.

[@gingerlori52]

Thank you. I have always tried to look more symbolically into what Jesus said. And none of you may like this but my thought "Of course Jesus had to call it devilish behavior. How else was he going to get thru the thick heads of a society built on greed and cruelty." But how much has changed since then?

[@nicksibly526]

Thank you Bishop Barron