Bishop Barron on Thomas Aquinas' Writing

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....

[@CHRISTINEVERITYCOONEYdelia99]

Father Barron is extremely highly educated but has a tremendous gift of interpretation on an understandable level for many people. I have understood and enjoyed listening to him and will continue to do so.

[@BishopBarron]

@BeingItself Bertrand Russell knew Aquinas about as well as Leonard Bernstein knew Lady Gaga. What he presents there (and I read it in his History of Philosophy when I was a teenager) is a complete caricature.

[@BishopBarron]

@MQ1611 It's the infallible church that teaches me not to worship a piece of bread! Friend, before you continue with your bad-mouthing of Catholicism, at least get your Catholicism straight. I quite agree with St. Paul that we shouldn't partake of other men's sins, but how you get from that to "quitting the Church" is beyond me.

[@Mjlopez1981]

Aquinas influences you so thoroughly, it is plain to see how much joy this brought you. It's interesting to me (and yet not lost on me) that a man could stand in Rome, finding the most beautiful thing to admire being the thoughts of another man. Hopefully one day, our descendants will find your works and say as wonderful things. God bless.

[@BishopBarron]

@BeingItself Do we have to agree with every argument of a philosopher in order to accord him the title of philosopher.? Heck I don't agree with lots of Aristotle's and Plato's arguments, but I wouldn't deny that they are philosophers. So no, I don't agree with everything Aquinas said. Does that make him less than a philosopher? Take a look at his De ente et essentia or his De potentia Dei and tell me, honestly, that you are not dealing with a profoundly philosophical mind.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well, whether it's hard or easy to imagine, such a reality must exist, precisely in order to explain the actual existence of a universe which does not contain within itself the reason for its own existence. And once you grasp this necessity, you see that such a reality must have no limitations to its being, since limitation implies conditionality. A being unlimited and unconditioned in its existence must contain all perfection, including mind and will.

[@BishopBarron]

@BeingItself But friend, you have no real ground to find Thomas Aquinas "repulsive!" I mean, that's so over the top. You're picking out a few opinions from his massive philosophical and theological output and not only disqualifiying him as a philosopher but also finding him personally repugnant. That's just so exaggerated. Might I recommend Matthew Fox's Sheer Joy or my own Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master in order to get a richer view of Aquinas.

[@thefateshavewarned]

I've always had a deep admiration for Aquinas. He is just behind Socrates as the philosopher that has influenced me the most. I really wish that more people would read Aquinas. He gave us a better understanding of the faith and gave some of the best defenses for the existence of God. I can definitely agree with GK Chesterton, who said that Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher of common sense in his book on Aquinas.

[@BishopBarron]

@bigboy45454545 Yes. The argument from contingency is logically compelling.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 No! I'm not just asserting it; I'm demonstrating it. If a causal regress is infinite, nothing has been explained. And this reality whose existence I've demonstrated must be able to exist utterly through itself; otherwise, it has been caused and we still have to look for another cause. That which exists through the power of its own essence is that which is unconditioned in its being. When Moses asked God for his name, he replied "I am who I am." Think about it.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well, friend, you're asking me to show a corresondance between the argument from contingency and God of the Bible, but I can't quote the Bible? How is that supposed to work?! The bottom line is that the non-contingent of contingent existence is the Creator of all finite things, the ground of their being. Furthermore, it is in possession of all ontological perfection and hence is intelligent, loving, free, etc. Just the kind of character the Bible describes.

[@JB-yo1fo]

My family has a Cross, with Relics of St Thomas ST Vincent and St Dominic in the Cross, only today i have seen the sixth Miracle with the Cross, today my friend went into ICU to See his mother ,she is in Hospital in a Coma From Christmas , the Doctors told the family there was no Hope, my friend went into ICU< and placed the Cross on her, The Doctors phoned his family an hour ago, and told the family, They had being treating his Mother with the wrong Treatment , Now this is where the Miracle Comes into play, in my mind when my friend placed the Cross on his mother, the Saints in the Cross went into the mind of the Doctor and told him he was giving Her the wrong treatment, Keep the Faith people,

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well, I'm glad you've accepted the logically compelling quality of the argument from contingency. What that means--though you might not see it now--is that you are no longer an atheist. Friend, when it comes to evidence, you have to remember that there are different kinds of evidence. You're not going to find physical traces of the Creator of all things! But you will find metaphysical arguments in favor of his existence, arguments that are convincing. That's evidence too.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 No! I'm trying to show that a rational argument concludes to the existence of a reality that corresponds to what the Bible calls "God."

[@BishopBarron]

@bigboy45454545 You might try reading a few of his pages, friend.

[@2000Betelgeuse]

Thanks Father Barron, before your videos, I had never heard of Thomas Aquinas and I'm a practicing Catholic

[@Entropy3ko]

What an honor Fr. Barron!!! I 'd love so much to see and touch something written by the Doctor Aungelicus. Also Thomas used to dictate his writings to 4 different scribes at the same time. He alone wrote more than some modern and contemporary writers. Even if you are not Catholic, Thomas still is a very interesting character and philosopher.

[@coldforgedcowboy]

Great video father and very timely! I was just going through the audio lectures of The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas by Peter Kreeft. So to see the actual documents is a real treat.

[@BishopBarron]

Did you read the entire conversation?! I wenet around and around with this fellow for several days.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well, one step at a time! There is only so much I can do in 500 characters. I mean, you're basically asking for a total justification of Christianity, which would require an entire course in theology. Do you admit that it is at least reasonable to hold that a source of finite existence, which itself is not contingent, actually exists? If so, you hold to what the Bible calls "God." Now we can proceed to other attributes of God, but you have to be patient.

[@itslifeisall]

I find it intensely interesting that within every faith there are those who are convinced that if people would only examine the facts with the same clear sighted logic as they have, all would share in their convictions. This type of religiocentricity has led to all manner of suffering throughout the ages, throughout the faiths. However, there are sure but steady signs of growth, maturity and mutual respect. Steady, albeit slow.

[@Kraut2121]

I am interested in Thomas Aquinas because my dog's name is Tom, oh also because I was very intrigued by Robert's personal story about his school teacher telling him about the contingency thing. That tidbit (which I first heard on Rubin Report) sparked something real in me.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well hold on. We have to take this one step at a time. The existence (or non-existence) of an abstract infinity is not the point here. The point is that an endless appeal to contingent causes doesn't provide what we're looking for, namely, an explanation of being that does not contain within itself the reason for its being. Your existence cannot be understood apart from some unconditioned ground of existence. That ground is what I mean by "God."

[@GarrettFruge]

Just bought "The Selected Works of St. Thomas Aquinas" today!

[@grandlotus1]

I did not understand Aquinas until I read Peter Kreeft's "Suma Of The Suma." It allowed me to understand the very formal structure that Aquinas used to present his reasoning. Kreeft's footnotes were indispensable, too.

[@LogosTheos]

+Hugo Furst Edward Feser's, "Aquinas for Beginners" is much better since he is actually an expert on Aquinas. I hard some complaints about Peter not articulating Aquinas's argument from motion well which led to easy critiques by KZbin atheists.

[@BishopBarron]

@MQ1611 Well, friend, first of all, Catholics do not "worship a piece of bread." Second, we advocate no idolatry. God alone receives worship. Third, I'll gladly admit that certain bad Catholics did wicked things as long as you're willing to admit that certain bad Protestants did wicked things as well.

[@thoughtadventure100]

It is good to be clear on the distinction between "in the wake of Vatican II" and "because of Vatican II". Thanks It is good to remember we have people like St. Thomas in our rich heritage

[@BishopBarron]

You're right. But there are still quite a few manuscripts in his own hand.

[@lproof8472]

IMO, Aquinas is the most brilliant man who ever lived. We don’t make people of his intellectual caliber anymore.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 So you find an argument logically compelling and yet you don't accept its conclusion? What you have therefore (and I'm not trying to be snarky here) is a psychological problem. There is some personal hang-up that is preventing you from assenting to a logically valid argument. I understand that lots of people are more or less allergic to the word "God." So I would suggest that you just leave it aside and we'll talk about the nature of the non-contingent ground.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 But if you try to explain contingent existence through an endless appeal to similarly contingent realities, you haven't explained anything at all. An infinite regress of caused causes is an incoherency. You are composed of cells, which are composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of quarks, etc. This must conduce, finally, to some dimension of reality which exists through the power of its own essence. This is what I mean by "God."

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Okay, I give up...

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well, the flatness of the earth is utterly beside the point! Tell me precisely where you think the argument fails. Once you accept that there is a non-contingent ground of contingency, then I can show you how that reality cannot be one being among many.

[@BishopBarron]

@MQ1611 No idea what point you're trying to make here, friend.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well, I suppose you can lead a horse to water... Friend, if you find the argument from contingency logically compelling, you are obliged, it seems to me, to accept its conclusion. The "evidence" you're looking for is a congeries of things that are not self-explanatory. Logical analysis then reveals that there must be an ultimate cause for such things; otherwise, they would not exist.

[@davidiancrux]

I am completely unaware of how Aquinas’s writings have seen decline in the wake of Vatican II. I’m new to Catholicism, but it seems Aquinas is an immense contributor to the Church’s Way. Perhaps someone seeing this comment today could explain it to me?

[@callums6570]

I strongly recommend going to Edward Feser's blog. Loads of fantastic, free material on Aquinas' thought.

[@davidiancrux]

Spikey Savage Thank you very much. I certainly will.

[@richardbenitez7803]

Bishop Barron often speaks of St Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans. I have always wondered why bishop Barron did not join the Dominican order instead of a diocese priesthood.

[@SuperGreatSphinx]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Order

[@bobaphat3676]

near the end of his life St. Thomas saw a vision of God and afterwards said, “all that I have written seems like straw to me."

[@allen764]

I like the interpretation of God as that which is finally non-contingent. I find that definition surprisingly comforting. It seems as though our humanity needs...almost demands a stop to an infinite regress. It is logical that the universe or multiverse has an ultimate cause. But how do justify the leap from cause.. to ..God? ..and specifically the Christian God?

[@thegreattesm]

@gambleor The purpose of the 5-ways by Aquinas (and in part Aristotle) is to show both a logical necessity for a certain cause (for any science that does not "investigate the cause does not have claim to knowledge of a thing") as well as a demonstrable method of showing a need for God. Aquinas believes we can only know God through His effects, not directly. In the end, for an atheist, we ought not decide that they will believe from mere logical discourse, because even believers doubt that

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 What have I not been reading of what you said? You told me that you find the argument logically compelling but yet you can't bring yourself to accept it. I think that's a sign of a personal problem or a mental block. And I'm not "speculating" about the non-contingent ground; I've offered an argument for its existence that you yourself admit is valid. That whose existence is unconditioned must be unrestricted in being and hence in possession of all ontological perfection.

[@davidrasch3082]

I was drawn to Saint Thomas Aquinas early in my conversion. One question whith which I struggle is how much of Aqunas is experience and how much intellect. Where do they combine? Do they separate?

[@lotrfan1996]

oh ok thanks for the clarification

[@martinarmbrust3606]

@bishoprobertbarron Can you recommend any study guides/companions for Aquinas? I am in discernment for priesthood and for that reason, I would like to gain a better understanding of his work.

[@gopman64]

St. Thomas, ora pro nobis !

[@thegreattesm]

@gambleor This is where I find Thomas's exposition in his De Potentia Dei to be most helpful in filling this out.

[@thegreattesm]

@gambleor Yup, that quite nearly as I defined it. This demonstration (motion, contingency) does not imply that.

[@thegreattesm]

@thegreattesm For some it is a stepping stone, but for many others faith is only a "major premise" that can either be true or false depending on disposition (e.g., Kant, who was himself Christian, and he believes in either a divided, completely transcendent realm). So faith is a factor, but Aquinas was very much interested on how with our hands and eyes we could come to a knowledge of an infinite and transcendent God.

[@rachealbrimberry8918]

been looking for vellum at some of the paper stores in Chicago....although I don't know if it's the same quality of what Aquinas was using.

[@rebeccahicks4949]

"Vellum" doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. In Aquinas's time, it was the word used for extremely fine parchment from animal skin. Now the word is often used to refer to a type of paper.

[@Bes1987]

Hey Father Barron, Im undergrad majoring in Philosophy in a large public university. Due to the nature of secular universities medieval philosophy is not covered to the extent that modern and analytic philosophy is. I was wondering whether you could recommend an introductory book or method of reading Aquinas on your own.

[@thegreattesm]

@wordonfirevideo Father, I think, however, he is trying to argue that an argument can be valid but not sound, and that a valid argument needs some sort of reference to provide a ground for its soundness. I believe, as you do, that the metaphysical evidence is compelling and, for me, coincides with what is being said here. I think you are right, in that way, to criticize his(?) criterion of evidence, because physical evidence cannot account for everything [again this is watered down b/c of w/c

[@temp911Luke]

I love Aquinas and his work but I only hate one of his claims: He claims unbaptized infants cannot possibly in heaven, but neither in hell nor purgatory. I think God who is Love with unlimited graces and powers can give grace to anyone outside The Sacrament as long as they dont reject the Church (or grace for that matter). Also, Catechism says that: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. [LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872]" Its Lumen Gentium - infallible teachings Aquinas is wrong about this one....

[@Entropy3ko]

Fr. Barron the problem on 'crappy philosophy' started with the early moderns like Descartes, Hobbes, Kant and Hume, who arbitrarily (with no logical reason) rejected Aristoteles and Thomas in order to promote utilariatism and mechanistic materialism. Interestingly now, many philosopphers (of science) are starting to re-evaluate Aristoteles and Essentialism and even final causality, because theh horrid mistakes of modern philosophy are now truly becoming apparent.

[@thegreattesm]

@gambleor This is why I challenged you at first because I believe that conclusion (Deism) is wrong. The 5-ways, or at least from motion (the first Way), as I've presented them are explained at their initial conclusion and not, because of limited space, carried out into what that conclusion entails.

[@jorgesoberon6866]

The dry and formal style of Aquinas may explain why he is so difficult to contemporary readers

[@thegreattesm]

@mthouser123 nope. I'm saying the demonstration does not imply Deism nor all emanating from the One.

[@fenoglios]

Nice

[@thegreattesm]

@gambleor I should think you'd be kind enough to offer your definition since the typical definition is that of what I've expounded above. A supreme being who sets things in motion and leaves them to their own devices.

[@oracleofaltoona]

Cont... but the experience of a personal God does not necessitate God being "other" than us. It is simply our perception that another is loving us. (I hope this is making sense.) I got hung up on the fact that you seemed to take exception in another vid of a non-personal view of God. And in doing so, I took it that you were insisting that God loves us with the love of the "other" for an object. I guess I am saying . . . not necessarily. But paradoxically -- true -- at the same time.

[@thegreattesm]

@gambleor Well, at the very least I wouldn't conclude Deism. I think that adds to the argument. Deism is the "clock-maker's" idea that God sets things into motion, which may be symbolized as, perhaps, G--->x1--->x2--->x3 Whereas this argument only says that God is the first cause. Even if he is the cause of many things simultaneously, I do not think it follows in many patterns as it does above. That is more Plotinus. Rather God as first mover implies a cause of motion and then....

[@jordanthomas4379]

can you pleas have conversation with Sam harris?

[@Troytomgary]

There are computer programs out there which could decipher his writings.

[@thegreattesm]

@gambleor Neither Aquinas nor I said this was a comprehensive answer. The 5-ways are for the existence of God. Your final sentence is a matter of Christology

[@oracleofaltoona]

@wordonfirevideo I've a Q.Pls bear w/me bcos Im not philosopher/theologian.But what UR describing could be rephrased as "God is all'. If so, how R we separate from God? I ask bcos it's germane 2 the point U make in another vid about a personal, Biblically-based conception of God.What I want 2 know is: Do U think R experience of a personal God could B conditioned on R existence as emotional creatures.& since we R direct expressions of God, that personalization, so to speak,of God is real(cont)

[@barbarasanta2454]

❤

[@thegreattesm]

@gambleor Except as first cause (w/ respect to contingency) he is considered as the creator of all being. Since he creates "ex nihilo" according to Aquinas in De Potentia Dei Q.3 art.1, he is the one who sustains all in being too. By this I mean that since he is Pure Act, with no admixture of potency, only he can create and all created being follows from him. 400 words is not enough to make an all-to-convincing argument. I just wanted to mention that Aq. holds that God acts in the universe

[@ammazzamoro]

Paul Murray. Is he a layman?

[@mammyoriordan]

Fr. Barron what did Thomas say about Islam - it all seems to have come to the fore again? - Blessings - Rene

[@rebeccahicks4949]

He did not say very much at all about it.

[@catholicpriest1]

Father, Even us dolts know what an autograph is.

[@Entropy3ko]

@anilwang Well Descartes wether he wanted to or not he did in the end reject Aristotle somewhatm abiding to a fully mechanistic view of the pphysical wold, yet still believing in a spiritual one (such as the soul). Hence was forced to take a 'dualistic' approach to his philosophy, separating the soul (or mind) and the body as two different entities... something that would have been rejected by Aristotle and even more so by Thomas, since in A-T the soul is the (Aristotelian) "form" of the body.

[@thegreattesm]

@thegreattesm ....the argument continues. I don't know, if we separate the "first mover" from its context and the body of the argument we may very well end up with what you say, but I think that's disingenuous also. God, according to the First way is pure ACT, and as such he cannot be someone who sets things in motion and then is disinterested. His creative act, though in terminates in being, is ever present (e.g., as a cause is related to an effect, e.g., being and those dependent on being)

[@thegreattesm]

@mthouser123 Is it hard because we claim that action is intentional (i.e., that he can intelligently create the kosmos) as opposed to a thing that does numerous things according to its nature (e.g., the sun and nuclear fusion, an animal processing nutrients). This is why those like Plotinus held that the One was that which emanated itself. I think it's harder to argue for the universe just existing, especially since nature acts for a sort of purpose (this I think is true). w.c. limits me here

[@lotrfan1996]

an honest question: i thought Thomas Aquinas hired men to do the writing and he dictated what was written?

[@PInk77W1]

Probably sometime but not all

[@joaquingimenez6152]

Spanish subtitles, please

[@aileenbordelon7884]

Why? Do you not speak English?

[@thegreattesm]

@mthouser123 Excuse me, I answered above to gambelor but clicked reply on you. I won't quote the Bible if it's not to your taste. As for the Christian God or not, I'm afraid that enters into the realm of theology. Say, like Aristotle and Plato, who posited a non-Christian first cause they saw interaction and goodness in creation because of the courses nature too to sustain itself and the pleasure that could be found therein. I think this demonstration is a starting point for those pre-faith.

[@lotrfan1996]

even though theyre in latin?

[@donaldmartineau8176]

I feel like a real "Dumb Ox" when trying to understand his Summa Theologica! :(

[@thegreattesm]

@mthouser123 Your analogy of the Earth being flat and 'contingency' is disingenuous. 1) "I claim the earth is flat" is the conclusion which is supported by the premises "you can't disprove me" as the major... and minor premise? This alone is terrible logic. 2) The argument of a first Cause or Mover is concluded from the premises -all things move, but they were put in "motion" by something else (e.g., a child by his parents) -there must be a cause of motion -an infinite regress is incoherent.

[@oracleofaltoona]

Also Father, you had better not "sojourn". ;-)

[@BeingItself]

@wordonfirevideo No, it is not. By the way, are you on board with Aquinas' view that the great thing about heaven will be watching all the sinners suffering as they burn in hell? Or what about his detailed views on the sexuality of angels? He was no idiot. But he was not a philosopher. He reveals this in his own writings.

[@bebetonguga]

Thanks for these videos. I am as well thomist and absolutely agree with you, Bishop Barron. The Doctor Communis is still a beackon and this dumb ox has still very much more to give yet!!

[@BeingItself]

Aquinas was no Philosopher. BR pegged him thusly: "There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith." He was just a dogmatist. The search for truth was no part of his work or life. Not a good role model.

[@BeingItself]

Of course not. I suppose you and I will just disagree about what defines a philosopher. Definitional disputes are tiresome, It's just interesting that you admire someone who I find so repulsive. For example, his view that all heretics should be killed. "If you don't believe what I believe then you deserve to die" seems rather unphilosophical. Hey, but he's your guy!

[@villiestephanov984]

BeingItself : when Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses on the church' doors, Fr. Barron looked up Amos and he instantly became his guy :)))

[@lotrfan1996]

i just started laughing when he implied that Catholics "sacrifice to devils." but on a more serious note, im really saddened that people jump to those assumptions simply because Catholics are a different Christian denomination than they are....but honestly? sacrificing bread and wine? TOTALLYYYYYY sounds occult, right? lol not

[@imabout2plotz]

Please do your research on Catholicism. You are so utterly confused. And if youre so devout to the Bible then why don't you use the most accurate and completed Bible? KJV correct? While a good translation poetically the most accurate is the New American Bible...aka the Catholic Bible.

[@cmur078]

The completed bible eh? Does your bible have third Maccabees?