Aquinas 101: Lesson Sixteen

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 16: Nature and Natures

The video by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP, seems to be a good summary of nature and natures. Fr. White starts with the Greek focus on change in their study of the philosophy of nature. Heraclitus claims that everything is change, and there is nothing constant in the world. And importantly, he states that nature is merely conventional. On the opposite side is Parmenides who denies there is change, that is the change we see is illusory. Aristotle argued both that there is real change, and that there is continuity in things that are subject to change. This points to the essence or nature of a thing—that which endures amidst change. Fr. White gives the example of an adolescent human being, who was earlier a baby, and before that an embryo, and in the future would be an adult human, then older. Though out all those changes, the essence or human nature remains.

Screen shot of the video

After giving a definition of nature, Fr. White relates this to our understanding of the laws of nature ("because things have nature we can rely upon them to act in predictable and identifiable ways, and that's the basis of science as well as common sense") and to natural law (the law at work in nature which inclines unto flourishing and perfection). He also states that because things have a nature, thing act in predictable and identifiable ways.

The selected readings are from Aquinas' Commentary on the Physics and from Ralph McInerny's A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas: A Handbook for Peeping Thomists. From Aquinas we have the definition of nature given in the video:

Therefore, nature is nothing other than a principle of motion and rest in that in which it is primarily and per se and not per accidens.

The audio lecture, "Good, Evil, and Science" by Fr. James Brent, OP, expands upon Fr. White's video that natures lead to an understanding of laws of nature and natural law. Fr. Brent states that the purpose of his lecture was integrate current science with a mature and theologically informed faith. The lecture was given in a narrative form with three major topics:

1. The world of form and finality (based on Aristotle's philosophy of nature and the metaphysics which follow from that)
2. The world of power and control (the mechanistic, reductionistic materialism which displaced Aristotle's philosophy)
3. The hermeneutics of love and wisdom (a way to integrate current science with faith)
   

The lecture is part of a larger set on SoundCloud: Faith, Science and Nature Conference. There is also an optional lecture (which I did not listen to) "Sizeless Stretchable Souls: Substantial Form as Nature in Aquinas" by Fr. Stephen Brock.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Fifteen

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 15: Universals and Particulars | Genus and Species

The video by Fr. James Brent, OP. is short. It is devoted to the definition of the terms in the title of this lesson. The individual things around us are called particulars. The forms or essences of these things, because they applicable to many particulars of the same kind, are called universals. And he states, "A genus is a general category containing many kinds and a species is a more specific category within a genus." There are species which can not be further divided except into particulars are called most specific species, and the particulars in a most specific species are called individuals.

The selected reading from Aquinas is his commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics, where Aristotle disagrees with Platonists that universals are substances themselves. In the other selected reading, Lear also comments on Aristotle, but on how we come to sense universals through our experience:

Through repeated encounters with items in the world, our sensory discriminations develop into memory and then into what Aristotle calls 'experience.' Experience Aristotle characterizes as 'the whole universal that has come to rest in the soul.' From repeated perception of particular men, we form the concept of a man, and the knowledge that this thing we see is a man is experience. If the universal, or concept, were not somehow already embedded in the particular, we could not make the transition from bare sensory discrimination to knowledge of the individual. As Aristotle says, 'though one perceives the particular, perception is of the universal.'

The audio lecture, "Seeking Universality in Truth, Goodness, and Beauty" by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP, is looking at the universality of knowledge or unity of knowledge in the university. He states that the two protagonists of the lecture are St. Thomas Aquinas and Gottlieb Söhngen. He takes us back to the formation of the early universities, and brings out two active questions: 1) How are the diverse forms of natural learning, although truly distinct, also coordinated and unified among themselves and in turn open to the mystery of divine revelation, and 2) Is theology really a science in the Aristotlian sense? If so does it relate to our natural forms of learning and how does it relate?

Fr. White recommends the reading of Aquinas' commentary on Boethius' De Trinitate. He talks about the three purely speculative sciences, philosophy of nature (study of change in being), mathematics (quantity), and metaphysics. From the latter, we can study the transcendentals, present in all being, and so move on the an understanding of being beyond the material world, toward some knowledge about God. Philosophy studies this world, with God on the horizon or summit. He goes on to state that God does not immediately unify knowledge but God is the proximate and transcendent subject that unites all learning as the cause of all created being.

He moves on to the second part of his lecture toward the modern problem of unity of knowledge and states that now the questions are: 1) whether philosophy can be used in theology at all, and 2) can there be Catholic theology in the secular university. He gives the problem in a historical context. As a result of the French Revolution, it became illegal to teach theology in the university (or for a priest to be a professor) and a parallel development in northern Europe and North America where theology in secular universities were marginalized. He points out four causes for this lack of unity: 1) loss of reference to divine Revelation in the Eighteenth Century, 2) philosophical skepticism, 3) ambient despair of universal knowledge, and 4) hyper specialization and consumerism in the Twentieth Century. 

Fr. White directs us to two articles by Gottlieb Söhngen on the analogy of faith (The Analogy of Faith: Likeness to God from Faith Alone and The Analogy of Faith: Unity in the Science of Faith). This brings out four points: 1) ultimate explanations (unity in the mystery of God), 2) unity of the canon between Old and New Testaments, 3) the unity of Church proclamations (teachings) and biblical witness, and 4) the correlation with analogia entis (analogy of being), and philosophical considerations of transcendentals, evoke the possibility of natural knowledge of God. That is, the Logos of divine Revelation meshes well with the logos of the world, hence a unity of truth and knowledge.

This lecture is found on SoundCloud.com, which goes on further past the 38 minutes (and I have not listened to that). This is part of the larger set at SoundCloud, Catholic Theology and the Modern University.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Fourteen

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 14: The Real Distinction

The video by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP, was simple and short. He says, "Having discovered that a thing is and what it is, we soon come to find that this thing raises causal questions which it cannot answer about itself. To put it plainly, none of the things procure their own existence." He continues that everything we observe is contingent. Existence only exists naturally in God (that is, the essence of God is existence itself).

Of the selected readings, that of Aquinas should be read carefully, since it is used in the audio lecture. I thought the following were good quotes:

It is clear, therefore, that existence is other than essence or quiddity, unless perhaps there exists a thing whose quiddity is its existence.

And,

But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible.

The selected reading from Gilson also has a couple of quotes I'd like to share: "Such also is the so-called distinction between essence and existence, which it would be better to call the distinction between essence (essentia) and the act-of-being (esse)." And because from our experience we see contingent things that cannot justify their existence:

It is this that is the distinction between essence and the act-of-existing. And because it is profoundly real, it poses the problem of the cause of finite existence, which is the problem of the existence of God.

The audio lecture, "Introduction to Metaphysics Part Two: Transcendentals and the Existence of God" also by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP, follows the same trajectory: from the distinction between essence and existence to a demonstration of the existence of God. Of course, the lecture will go a little deeper.

During the lecture, Fr. White said, "The mind never dominates being, the mind is invited to understand being." This stands in contrast to the ideas that "knowledge is power" and the "conquest of nature."

At the start of the lecture, Fr. White notes that being transcends the various categories of being. That is, being is beyond these categories, and that all that exists has being. This leads into the discussion of transcendentals: being, unity, truth, goodness, and with Aquinas, he believes that beauty is also included in this list. The following is a brief description of each:

• being (exists in reality, which includes the various categories of being)
• unity (this is understood in a flexible way, but all things insofar as they are things are one)
• truth (intelligibility, what really exists)
• goodness (tending toward perfection)
• beauty (splendor and attraction of form, integrity and proportionality)

He discusses being in actuality and being in potentiality in various modes: movement, operational and substantial (that is, individual substances exist, did not exist in the past, and will cease to exist in the future). So this leads us to understand that everything we experience is contingent and is caused. We know a few things:

1. everything around us exists, but is not existence
   
2. nothing is the cause of its own existence
3. these things do not account for its own existence by its nature

He goes on to clarify some points about being in the material world:

1. found in all things
2. not identical with any one essence
3. makes each thing distinct from others yet all are related
   

He then briefly covers three proofs for the existence of God (which are by inference and are certain). Not all these are the tradition five proofs found in the Summa Theologia (he says there are at least nine proofs from all of the works of Aquinas).

1. from motion (or ontological change). This is the unmoved mover from the Summa
   
2. existence-essence composition. This is paragraph 80 from the selected reading from De Ente et Essentia
3. The tendency toward perfection

From these proofs, we can know some things about God: God is not material, God is the cause of all being, and God is a kind of perfection.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Thirteen

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 13: Essence and Existence

The video is by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP.  He starts by asserting that everything is not reducible to one thing (such as when certain Greek philosophers thought that all things were made of the element of fire). He states, "Each essence has material parts, but is also a holistic form. The material parts are organized and made intelligible by the form." He states,

The larger point is that in all the things we experience, there's both form and matter. Reality is not simply built up from the bottom. It's also influenced from the top down. The parts of things have their place within the whole.

Most of the video time is spent on essences, but he summarizes what existence and essence are: "essence answers to what a thing is, while existence, or being, answers to that it is, or the fact that it exists." And he points out that they are related but distinct.

The selected readings were very helpful. The selected reading from Aquinas was extremely helpful, once I slowed down to read it carefully. I would quote most of it, so instead, I'll direct you to the reading. The reading from Feser was also helpful. I thought these two quotes were important:

we can distinguish between a thing's essence and its existence, between what it is and the fact that it is.

And,

But then the existence of the creatures that do exist must be really distinct from their essences, otherwise one could know of their existence merely from knowing their essences.

The audio lecture, "The Distinction of Essence and Existence" by Prof. Edward Feser, sets out to show we can make distinctions between essence and existence, and that this distinction reflects the reality of the outside world (and not merely a product of the mind, such as a logical distinction). He sets out to show this by knowledge (and this mirrors the reading), by contingency, and by uniqueness (that is, there can only be one thing in which its essence is existence). This latter part leads into a discussion of the uncaused cause (which we know as God), and he also unpacks Aristotle's discussion of pure act (which is a different approach, similar to substistent existence itself discussion prior). Then Prof. Feser talks about objections to these arguments. These are grouped into three parts: 1) Anthony Kenny's critique, 2) substitutivity of identicals, and 3) anti-essentialism. About the third, it's not an argument, but it seems true, Prof. Feser said, "you need to be very learned before you start doubting the obvious." It's one of those humorous things about fallen human nature.

This lecture can be found at SoundCloud as part of the set, 7th Annual Philosophy Workshop: Aquinas on Metaphysics.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Twelve

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 12: Form and Matter

The video was by Fr. James Brent, OP.  The short video starts by questioning what is truth, love, and justice. The answer is form; that is, form answers the question about what a thing is. He talks about the differences between forms as thought of by Plato and forms as thought of by Aristotle. And when he talks about the essences (or nature) of things, he is talking about forms. Matter is discussed:

matter is the universal substratum of pure potentiality that does not exist on its own except in union with a form, which makes it to be this or that kind of matter.

And then, all things in nature are composites of matter and form. This is called hylomorphism. And "the form of a thing is its act and the matter of a thing is its potency." Form is the intelligibility of a thing. It answers our question of what they are.

From the readings, I found the selection from Copleston to be most helpful. The first quote is about prime matter:

Aquinas thought, we must arrive at the concept of a purely indeterminate potential element which has no definite form of its own and no definite characteristics. This he called 'first matter' (materia prima). Visible matter, secondary matter, is already informed and possesses determinate characteristics

 The second is about the composite of form and matter:

According to Aquinas, therefore, every material thing or substance is composed of substantial form and first matter. Neither principle is itself a thing or substance; the two together are the component principles of a substance. And it is only of the substance that we can properly say that it exists. 'Matter cannot be said to be; it is the substance itself which exists'

The audio lecture, "Introduction to Metaphysics: Form and Matter; Substance and Accidents" by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP, is a good lecture, but I found it very difficult to follow toward the end. Fr. White talks about three lectures, and they can be found on SoundCloud. Fr. White begins with two definitions of principles, of which the second will be used in this lecture: "constitutive causes what makes a given thing the kind of thing that it is."

The aim of the lecture is: "Elaborate a metaphysical science or universal form of thought that is insightful and realistic" (and Aquinas thinks this is possible). Form and matter are two co-constitutive principles of a thing in the material world. They are not things themselves.

He next helpfully tells us what a natural form is not (and if you're a beginner with this, this use may be foreign to you): It is not:

1. the shape of a thing
2. static (meaning that the essence of a thing continues through change)
3. not an accidental form or an artifact like a house or a painting (things which are made)

 Rather a natural form is:

1. an intrinsic principle of determination that gives a stable identity to a given reality through time
2. it is the cause of the realities having a given identity or intelligible essence in and through all the changes it undergoes it is that which persists through change
3. principle of internal organization of the material parts of a given reality so that those parts can be identified only as parts of it
4.  essential source of stable  properties
5.  foundation for teleological outcomes

(At this point, you may be thinking Fr. White is talking over your head, I can grasp what he is saying, but I don't feel comfortable re-stating these definitions; it may be helpful to re-read these several times).

When speaking about matter, Aquinas may be using one of two definitions:

1. parts of matter (that is, at this level,  all matter has form, and can be further broken down into parts) (examples: heart, lung, and eyes are matter which partly make up a human being)
   
2.  prime matter or pure potency (at this level, matter which does not have form, refer to the Copleston quote above) (about this Fr White states: "principle of radical indetermination  present in all physical things")
   

With these we have a fundamental capacity for alteration, where something continues to be through change. Even the new things are made from older things. (Perhaps I should be used to using the word substance instead of things, for this is the topic of the next part).

In discussing substances Fr, White is talking about an individual thing (matter and form), and it has properties which could be termed accidents. He talks about categorical modes of being which inhere in a substance. So he is moving on to Aristotle's categories. And he reads from Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle which I found here. I'll quote the paragraphs he is reading from:

891. For it should be noted that a predicate can be referred to a subject in three ways.

(1) This occurs in one way when the predicate states what the subject is, as when I say that Socrates is an animal; for Socrates is the thing which is an animal. And this predicate is said to signify first substance, i.e., a particular substance, of which all attributes are predicated.

892. (2) A predicate is referred to a subject in a second way when the predicate is taken as being in the subject, and this predicate is in the subject either (a) essentially and absolutely and (i) as something flowing from its matter, and then it is quantity; or (ii) as something flowing from its form, and then it is quality; or (b) it is not present in the subject absolutely but with reference to something else, and then it is relation.

(3) A predicate is referred to a subject in a third, way when the predicate is taken from something extrinsic to the subject, and this occurs in two ways. (a) In one way, that from which the predicate is taken is totally extrinsic to the subject; and (i) if this is not a measure of the subject, it is predicated after the manner of attire, as when it is said that Socrates is shod or clothed. (ii) But if it is a measure of the subject, then, since an extrinsic measure is either time or place, (aa) the predicament is taken either in reference to time, and so it will be when; or (bb) if it is taken in reference to place and the order of parts in place is not considered, it will be where; but if this order is considered, it will be position. (b) In another way, that from which the predicate is taken, though outside the subject, is nevertheless from a certain point of view in the subject of which it is predicated. (i) And if it is from the viewpoint of the principle, then it is predicated as an action; for the principle of action is in the subject. (ii) But if it is from the viewpoint of its terminus, then it will be predicated as a passion; for a passion is terminated in the subject which is being acted upon.

Fr. White talks about a chart (which we can't see) which lists the categories of being, so hopefully the following list is correct (I did not always use the same examples)

1. substance (a human being)
2. quantities (size, tall, short)
3. qualities (capable of doing math)
4. relations (such as to a father)
5. habits (like the wearing of shoes)
   
6. location in time
7. location in place
8. position (sitting or standing)
9. actions (talking)
10. passions (i.e. passive, like listening)

Further Resources (which is optional) is on SoundCloud (and I did not have a chance to listen):Jeffrey Brower - Form-Matter Composition.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Eleven

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 11: Act and Potency

The video (which is done by Fr. James Brent, OP) is very brief. And that was a common complaint in the comments at YouTube. But it was a good introduction to act and potency, and Fr. Brent talked about the ultimate cause of all change being an unmoved mover which we call God.

In the selected readings, I think Feser's description of the actualization of potency is helpful:

If the ball is to become soft and gooey, it can't be the actual gooeyness itself that causes this, since it doesn't yet exist. But that the gooeyness is non-existent is not (as Parmenides assumed) the end of the story, for a potential or potency for gooeyness does exist in the ball, and this, together with some external influence (such as heat) that actualizes that potential--or, as the Scholastics would put it, which reduces the potency to act--suffices to show how the change can occur. Change just is the realization of some potentiality; or as Aquinas puts it, 'motion is the actuality of a being in potency' (In Meta IX.1.1770).

The audio lecture, "Principles of Nature" by Fr. James Brent, OP, puts act and potency within the context of philosophy of nature. It's a very detailed lecture which may be difficult to absorb, not due to any fault of Fr. Brent's exposition, but rather because there is so much to take in. And I wonder if I can summarize in any way except by providing a rough outline.

At the beginning, Fr. Brent suggests Aquinas' summary of Aristotle in Principles of Nature. I can see something of the outline of Fr. Brent's lecture but the language of Aquinas may not be accessible to modern readers. Indeed, Fr. Brent takes care to point out that modern science and Aristotle's philosophy of nature are two different modes of analysis: the modern is analysis by elements (what things are made of) and the philosophy of nature is analysis by principles.

A. Aristotle has to deal with the problem of change:

1. some things change (this is the introduction of matter being the principle of potency in things)
   
2. some things change without ceasing to be what they are (this is the introduction of form as being the principle of act in things)
   There are 4 types of change (the first three are accidental changes)
   
   • quality
   • quantity
   • place
   • substantial change (something coming to be or passing away)
     
3. so then, some things come to be and pass away
4.  Nothing comes from nothing
   

This is the rational for potency (1), composition of substance and accident (2), and affirming continuity in nature (3 and 4).

The main principle for Aristotle is hylomorphism - all things of nature are composed of matter and form.

There are two levels of change which reveal two levels of composition

1.  Accidental change -- substance and accident
2.  Substantial change -- substantial form and primary matter

 A definition of change is given: actualization of what is in potential insofar as it is in potential -OR- potency becoming actual.

 B. The causes in nature

1. material - that out of which a thing is made
   
2. formal - that which makes a thing to be what it is
   
3. efficient (or agent) - that which brings the thing about (into being, source of motion, or rest)
   
4. final - that for the sake of which a thing is or comes to be (this is critical for Aristotle)

 Fr. Brent introduces two principles at this point

1. Whatever comes to be has an efficient cause
2. All agents act for the sake of an end
   

At the end, Fr Brent restates the two levels of analysis:

1. broadest, most general principles of nature and elaborating the essences of natural things (analysis by principles)
   
2. highly specific, highly detailed matters, a lot of it is regarding their accidental features (analysis by elements).

One of the good things about these lectures is that we'll be seeing these terms again and again. And so hopefully, one will be able to understand Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy and embrace it.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Ten

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 10: Being and Metaphysics

The video was done by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP. He gave a definition of metaphysics as the search for the deep down causes of things or the science of being about that which exists. There are distinctions about various things that exist (what is different?). And what unites all things? These are transcendentals: being, unity, truth, goodness, and beauty. I did a screen shot of the various aspects of being:

The selected readings come from Aristotle's Metaphysics, and Jonathan Lear's Aristotle: The Desire to Understand. Lear quotes Aristotle, "There is a science which investigates being as being." And Lear continues, "man can inquire into reality as such". Further, man can "begin to inquire into the broad structure of reality. Aristotle discovered that there could be an inquiry into reality as such: as he put it, there is a single science which studies being as being."

The audio lecture, "Beyond Scientism - Philosophical Knowing" by Fr. James Brent, OP, doesn't directly cover the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas or philosophical realism. Fr. Brent begins with the wisdom of the world, which denies an all encompassing metaphysics, but really is proposing all encompassing metaphysical principle which bound inquiry and discussion. Naturalism and physicalism bound discussion of what really exists. Related to these are the epistemological constraints of scientism which set the boundaries of what we can know (or what we can know with certainty). In response to these three interrelated philosophies, there are four problems: 1) self referential defeat (in making their claims they prove themselves wrong), 2) upfront, the question of God's existence is ruled out, 3) the problem of morality (modern science cannot verify morality), and 4) it cannot give meaning to human life (and human beings need this). He states the three tasks for contemporary philosophy given by Pope Saint John Paul II in Fides et Ratio (I copied them in Lesson Eight). In the last ten minutes of the lecture, he briefly outlines a way out of modern philosophical matrix with a short example:

1) There is truth.
2) We know #1.

No one can deny the first (it's denial is self defeating—we can ask: is that a true statement?). It's not verified by the senses or modern scientific methods.

Fr. Brent then gives a list of principles which can be known by rational reflection but are not verified through the senses:

1. The principle of non contradiction
2. Reality is self consistent
3. Every event has a cause (Kant)
4. Impossible to desire something without knowing it (at least in someway of knowing)
5. All colors have extension 
6. In order for a person to be morally responsible for an act, he (or she) must be free in enacting it
   

Aquinas 101: Lesson Nine

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 9: Argument and Dialectic

It's probably best to start with the selected readings which define and give an outline in preparation for the video and lecture. The selection from Aristotle makes a distinction between different types of arguments: 1) demonstration from premisses which are primary and true, 2) dialectic from premisses which are from opinions generally accepted, 3) contentious if from reasoning of what seems to be generally accepted but it is not so, and 4) mis-reasoning. The selection from Alasdair MacIntyre discusses three developments which came together in the twelfth century: 1) quaestiones, 2) dialectic, and 3) distinctiones. 

It is from here that we can better understand the background for the video by Fr. James Brent, OP. He gives an outline of the disputed question in St. Thomas Aquinas, but it's from the vantage point of a scholar seeking the truth. From the first lines of the video: 

Our world is filled with conflicting perspectives and opinions about many things, and the clash of options and perspectives leads many people to despair about the possibility of finding any truth.  But the ancient philosopher Aristotle saw in the conflict of opinions not a reason to despair about finding truth, but precisely an opportunity to find it.

The audio lecture, "Thomism as a Paradigm of Academic Discourse" by Prof. Jessica Murdoch, is a discussion about the movement from the realism of Aristotle and Aquinas to the anti-realism of modernist and post-modernist philosophies. She contends that by looking at the nihilist philosophy of Gianni Vattimo, one could have a good summary of the anti-realist critique of realism. It seems to me that the anti-realist philosophers believe that realist philosophers are imposing their ideas upon reality, but as Prof. Murdoch continues that this misses the humility of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas seeks the truth for love of truth. Indeed, Aquinas treats his interlocutors (not his opponents) with respect as others who are seeking the truth. In the disputed questions, which starts with objections, Josef Pieper has observed that Aquinas argues the objection better than his interlocutors from which Prof. Murdoch comments that many of her freshman students first believe Aquinas is arguing for the other side. Indeed, Aquinas seeks to conform his mind to the truth, to bring the mind in touch with reality. For Aquinas, a dialog is where listening is critically important, but not to harmonize two conflicting opinions, but to clarify the truth (finding the distinction), or correcting one's own understanding of the truth.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Eight

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 8 - The Principle of Non-Contradiction

Both the video and the audio lecture are by Fr. James Brent, OP. The video is good; it gives a summary of the principle of non-contradiction (PNC) and why it's important. But don't miss the audio lecture. Who knew that a 35 minute lecture could demonstrate the power of PNC? The readings give Aristotle's thinking on PNC (and so is a good place to start). The other reading selection is from Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on the importance of PNC. I thought the following quotes were powerful. Without the light of PNC:

4. It would mean the destruction of all truth, for truth follows being;

5. It would destroy all thought, even all opinion; for its very affirmation would be a negation.

The lecture, "The Principle of Non-Contradiction Yesterday, Today, and Forever," starts with Pope St. John Paul II's Fides et Ratio on the three tasks of philosophy. From the encyclical:

"philosophy needs first of all to recover its sapiential dimension as a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life." (81)

"this sapiential function could not be performed by a philosophy which was not itself a true and authentic knowledge, addressed, that is, not only to particular and subordinate aspects of reality—functional, formal or utilitarian—but to its total and definitive truth, to the very being of the object which is known. This prompts a second requirement: that philosophy verify the human capacity to know the truth, to come to a knowledge which can reach objective truth by means of that adaequatio rei et intellectus to which the Scholastic Doctors referred." (82)

"The two requirements already stipulated imply a third: the need for a philosophy of genuinely metaphysical range, capable, that is, of transcending empirical data in order to attain something absolute, ultimate and foundational in its search for truth." (83)

Fr. Brent went on to demonstrate how PNC could be used to fulfill those three requirements. It's interesting that Fr. Brent used St. Thomas Aquinas' method of disputation in the Summa. He presented two disputed questions: 1) Whether human beings have the capacity to know the truth and 2) Whether the principle of non-contradiction is as significant as the ancient and medeival philosophers thought it was. He used PNC to demonstrate that question one can be answered in the affirmative, from which one can intuit the the answer to the second question. I'll give an outline to the first question.

Question 1. Whether human beings have the capacity to know the truth

objection 1: Fact of disagreement
obj. 2: Fact of deception
obj. 3: Antinomies everywhere
obj. 4: Subjective perspectives
obj. 5: Solipsism
obj. 6: Fallibilism
obj. 7: Constructivism (theory construction: theories developed according to our social condition)

Sed contra, from Aristotle's Metaphysics book 4 chapter 3 in his demonstration of PNC, at least one person knows the truth about being, and so then it's possible for human beings to know truth.

Fr. Brent's "I say" begins with three ways to state PNC according to Thomists:
1. It is impossible for something to be and not to be at the same time [and in the same respect] (attributes possessed by a thing)
2. It is impossible for something to exist and not to exist ... (act of existence )
3. It is impossible for a statement to be true and false at the same time and in all the same senses of the terms (logic)

And so Thomists see a distinction between the metaphysical (the first two ways) and the logical (the third way) to express PNC.

About PNC, it is a first principle of metaphysics, and indeed, all arguments presuppose the truth of this axiom. It is self-evident even though it may be difficult to grasp at first. But once a person grasps it they cannot deny it. Indeed, as Aristotle points out, no one can deny it in thought (that is: to think something is and is not at the same time). It's impossible to be mistaken about PNC (it's true, true, and not false). Once it has been demonstrated, one "sees" the truth then one knows the truth.

The truth of PNC is not determined by evidence or the senses. It is an a priori reflection and has an a priori justification for it. Indeed, the modern sciences presuppose the truth of PNC. Another way of expressing this principle is saying that all being is self consistent.

Therefore, human beings have the capacity to know the truth.

The reply to the objections are presented in a way to see how the objections are mistaken.
1. There is no disagreement of PNC in thought (but in words, it's possible say you disagree).
2. It's not possible to be mistaken by PNC (indeed it doesn't require the senses), and so we know something about being.
3. It is because we know already about PNC, that antinomies are alarming for us, and antinomies lead us to investigate further to understand better the object of investigation.
4. PNC is not anyone's perspective, and it shows there is objective truth (it's a doorway to truth).
5. Modern philosophy is really epistemology, where there is a dichotomy between the internal and external world, but PNC exists prior to any distinction of internal and external. Being IS. And the mind is nothing but access to being.
6. Science is not the ultimate account of things; it is not the first philosophy. And as has been shown about PNC, it does not require modern science to demonstrate it. Additionally, Fr. William Wallace gave the example of demonstrative knowledge from nature which one can be sure won't be overturned by new evidence such as the moon is spherical.
7. Research and inquiry are a social acts, but object of research and investigation is the truth of things where we discover the truth. PNC is an example of a truth beyond politics and prior to science.

It may be that my outline of Fr. Brent's disputation is inaccurate. Please listen to the lecture. It's very good and you won't regret it (however, that is a subjective opinion, unlike PNC).

Aquinas 101: Lesson Seven

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 7: The Science of Theology

The video concentrates on theology as a science (re-visiting the question whether theology is a science). We have certain helps that help us determine whether the Christian revelation is true: 1) we can look at the revelation and find the internal coherence of it; 2) we can see how this revelation illumines the human condition; 3)  we can see how revelation dovetails with human reason (such as proofs of the existence of God); and 4) God gives us confirming signs (such as miracles, or the endurance of the Church and her teachings). Fr. White succinctly states that theology is "science made possible by grace." Fr. White highlights the two most important principles of Christian theology: 1) the doctrine of the Trinity by which we can understand all else, and 2) the doctrine of the Incarnation. From the selected readings Fr. White writes, "Theology is a science in the sense that it has a proper object of study: the mystery of God made available in divine revelation."

The audio lecture, "Aquinas on the Three Wisdoms: Philosophical, Theological, Mystical" by Fr. Dominic Legge, OP, builds the foundations for rightly ordering the sciences. He begins with the common human experience of wonder, which is a prerequisite for wisdom. He gives three broad questions we all ask: 1) What is? 2) Who am I? (what does it mean to be human?) and 3) How shall I act? Fr. Legge then moves to the causes of things in understanding "what is" and provides Aristotle's four causes for deeply understanding a thing: 1) the material cause (what is it made of) 2) the efficient cause (what caused it to come into being) 3) the formal cause (the idea of what that thing is, it's intelligibility) and 4) the final cause (that for the sake of which it is).The four causes take us into a deeper understanding, and with deeper understanding we can see the order of things.

Here Fr. Legge moves into the ordering of the sciences. He discusses how we can know things. As animals we can perceive things through the senses and remember those sense experiences. As rational animals, we can "see" the form of things. This leads us into the various modes of inquiry. Fr. Legge gives the example of an orange. We can see it's color (science of optics), we can see that it can be thrown (physics), we see that it's healthy to eat (medicine), and we can see that it's round (geometry). And Fr. Legge then proceeds to order these sciences into practical (ordered to activity) and speculative (ordered to truth). From my own education and experience, I know that we're utilitarian as a culture, and so we value the practical sciences (engineering, medicine),  but in the selected reading from the Summa (ST Ia Q.1 a.5) objection two talks of of lower sciences depending on higher sciences. The example given is of music (ordered to activity, practical) depending on the higher science of arithmetic (ordered to truth, speculative). Fr. Legge then tells us the speculative sciences are further divided into those which deal with matter and change (e.g. biology) and those that abstract from physical things like mathematics (abstracting to deal with quantity) and the highest abstraction of  dealing with being as being or metaphysics. Up to this point, Fr. Legge has been talking about wisdom through the light of human reason. But there is also the light of faith or grace, which we can obtain wisdom beyond which we could obtain through the light of human reason. This is where one obtains wisdom through the science of theology, or one may be given the gift of the Holy Spirit of wisdom which would be mystical wisdom. The third and highest light is that of glory, where we hope that we'll reach heaven and there we will see God face to face. Thus ends the ordering of the sciences.

Related material can be found in this lecture, "Introduction to Metaphysics - Part Three: Philosophy as Wisdom" by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP. Again Fr. White speaks away from the microphone, but most of it can be heard. He speaks about the hierarchy of being and objections to the metaphysics of St. Thomas. He thinks that Thomistic philosophy can account for the theory of evolution.

It the other parts can be found here on SoundCloud (I did not listen to the other lectures).

Aquinas 101: Lesson Six

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 6: How Do You Read An Article of the Summa?

Today's article teaches how to read an article of the Summa. It's practical rather than theological or philosophical, so there doesn't seem to be much of a point summarizing the lesson other than to point out what it's doing.

Screenshot from video

The video gives a quick break down on the parts of the summa. The selected readings gives a look at one of the questions (articles) in the Summa. The audio lecture, "Aquinas on the Incarnation (Part 1)" by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, O.P., walks through reading a couple of articles in the Summa. The lecture itself is interesting too. If you wish to follow along, I've supplied a couple of links to the part of the Summa which Fr. White is covering.

* At the Thomistic Institute.

* At New Advent.

If you're interested in hearing both parts of Fr. Thomas Joseph White's lecture on the Incarnation, I'm linking to both parts at SoundCloud: Part 1 and Part 2.

Consecration to Jesus through Mary

The Immaculate Conception by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, downloaded from Wikipedia

Consecration day at Fish Eaters. Scroll down to step 4.

Consecration day at The Catholic Company.

At Mass today, the priest spoke of Original Sin (which is an important prerequisite to understanding the immaculate conception of Mary). He also spoke of funerals where people believe that heaven is guaranteed after death. While God wills that we all be received into heaven, it is not something we can claim by right. We "get into" heaven solely through God's mercy. It's a gift, a grace. And so this part of the consecration prayer stood out for me:

Since I cannot lay claim to anything except what merits your rejection and displeasure, I dare no longer approach the holiness of your majesty on my own. That is why I turn to the intercession and the mercy of your holy Mother, whom you yourself have given me to mediate with you. Through her I hope to obtain from you contrition and pardon for my sins, and that Wisdom whom I desire to dwell in me always.

St. Louis de Montfort repeatedly expressed that this consecration to Jesus through Mary is a renewal of our Baptismal vows. And we should renew those vows repeatedly as a reminder to ourselves about our journey and our final end. May the peace of Jesus Christ be with you.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Five

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 5: Why Is The Summa Important?

The video provides an excellent overview of the Summa Theologiae, and explains the well known "joke" that the Summa is for beginners. Hopefully we're prepared to step into this adventure, or that the Thomistic Institute will supply what we're missing. Let's proceed with the hope that it will get easier as we progress in the lessons.

The selected reading is from the Summa. The following is a good summary of the intentions of Aquinas, and how the Summa would be organized.

Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the beginning of things and their last end, and especially of rational creatures, as is clear from what has been already said, therefore, in our endeavor to expound this science, we shall treat: (1) Of God; (2) Of the rational creature's advance towards God; (3) Of Christ, Who as man, is our way to God.

The audio lecture is "A Brief introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas and the Summa" by Fr. John Harris, OP. Fr. Harris covered the same material as the video. He also included a few markers that a person might remember along the way when studying the Summa. For example, he explained that the common belief that we'll be turned into angels in heaven is false. What follows are a few short quotes from the lecture.

Sinful humanity is not humanity, it's less than humanity.
Graced humanity is greater than humanity... It's not human to sin.

There are a few nuggets of wisdom like this scattered throughout the lecture, emphasizing that God created the world good, our existence is good, and that God intends that human beings be good. One interesting point is when Fr. Harris offered the opinion that the Summa was providentially unfinished so that we might realize that however well we may learn the lessons St. Thomas taught us, God and his redemptive work remains a mystery, not that we're in the complete dark about it, but rather we'll never know it all in this lifetime. And the fact that the Summa was unfinished is a good reminder of that.

Knowledge of Jesus: Day Seven

Eucharistic Adoration of Jesus in the Monstrance at Little Flower, photo by user ExorcisioTe, downloaded from Wikimedia Commons

Day thirty three at Fish Eaters.

Day thirty three at The Catholic Company.

Today's readings come from Imitation of Christ and True Devotion. The selection from Imitation of Christ is Eucharistic, which is fitting, since the Blessed Sacrament is the source and summit of our faith. In gratitude (for Eucharist means thanksgiving), we receive our Lord: body, blood, soul, and divinity. We do so in a foretaste of seeing Jesus in his glory, after we've been purified of our sin and flaws.

My eyes could not bear to behold You in Your own divine brightness, nor could the whole world stand in the splendor of the glory of Your majesty. In veiling Yourself in the Sacrament, therefore, You have regard for my weakness.

The selection from True Devotion continues the topic from yesterday. Thirdly, we do our actions in Mary. This recalls Mary as the ark of the New Covenant, where Mary bore Jesus for nine months. Since she was created as a fitting vessel for Jesus, in that time, Jesus was in paradise, of which the Garden of Eden was a figure. It reminds me that we're like Mary when we bear Jesus for a few minutes after receiving Holy Communion. Of course, we're not perfect, but we should be free from the state of mortal sin (that is, being spiritually dead) before we receive. We hope that within us, God is creating and transforming our interior life such that it also may be a place of rest for Jesus. In the Church, which is a type of the New Eve, which is Mary, we are formed into the image and likeness of the Father's Son.

And fourthly, in gratitude, we do all for Mary. Yes, we are servants of God and servants of our neighbor (out of love for God and love for neighbor), in particular, the kindly neighbor of the Blessed Virgin who has accepted us as adopted children, and therefore, we are also adopted brothers and sisters of Jesus. 

It is not that we can take her for the last end of our services, for that is Jesus Christ alone; but we may take her for our proximate end, our mysterious means, and our easy way to go to Him. Like a good servant and slave, we must not remain idle, but, supported by her protection, we must undertake and achieve great things for this august sovereign.

We must defend her privileges when they are disputed; we must stand up for her glory when it is attacked; we must entice all the world, if we can, to her service and to this true and solid devotion; we must speak and cry out against those who abuse her devotion to outrage her Son, and we must at the same time establish this Veritable Devotion; we must pretend to no recompense for our little services, except the honour of belonging to so sweet a Queen, and the happiness of being united by her to Jesus her Son by an indissoluble tie in time and in eternity.

Since this is the last day before consecration or re-consecration, a person should go to confession before receiving the Blessed Sacrament at the Mass of the feast day.

Knowledge of Jesus: Day Six

Immaculate Heart of Mary by Leopold Kupelwieser, downloaded from Wikipedia

Day thirty two at Fish Eaters.

Day thirty two at The Catholic Company.

Today's readings are from Imitation of Christ and True Devotion. The Imitation has us reflecting on who or what rules our hearts: "Your Beloved is such that He will not accept what belongs to another and He wants your heart for Himself alone, to be enthroned therein as King in His own right." Why should we want Jesus enthroned in our hearts? The Imitation of Christ explains,

Affection for creatures is deceitful and inconstant, but the love of Jesus is true and enduring. He who clings to a creature will fall with its frailty, but he who gives himself to Jesus will ever be strengthened.

Love Him, then; keep Him as a friend. He will not leave you as others do, or let you suffer lasting death. Sometime, whether you will or not, you will have to part with everything. Cling, therefore, to Jesus in life and death; trust yourself to the glory of Him who alone can help you when all others fail.

The selection from True Devotion gives guidance on how to bring about this interior change. Both Fish Eaters and The Catholic Company pages use a slightly different list than the translation by Fr. Faber (TAN Books). Fr. Faber's translation says that we are "to do all our actions by Mary, with Mary, in Mary, and for Mary; so that we may do them all the more perfectly by Jesus, with Jesus, in Jesus, and for Jesus." Instead of "by" the two pages use "through." I understand why they have done this, because it has been confusing to me. But after some thought, I prefer Fr. Faber's translation because we're to do all our actions by the spirit of Mary, whose spirit is so united to that of the Holy Spirit, that we are doing all our actions by the Holy Spirit. So "by the Holy Spirit" seems better than "through the Holy Spirit" in that it captures the source of good in the Holy Spirit, rather than in ourselves. One could argue that we do our actions by the Holy Spirit through Mary, but that requires remembering two prepositions instead of one; and I think that I can easily remember that "by Mary", it means "by the spirit of Mary" or "by the Holy Spirit."

The other preposition covered for today is "with" (the remaining prepositions will be covered tomorrow). By "with" we are to consider Mary as a model in our actions. How did she do it? Or how would she have done it if she were in our shoes? We should consider her virtues, especially her "lively faith" and her "deep humility." It is these two virtues which will help us obtain deeper knowledge of Jesus, to trust in him and to have confidence in him in our relationship with him. Indeed, that Jesus may be truly enthroned in our hearts.

Knowledge of Jesus: Day Five

Great Panagia, icon in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, downloaded from Wikipedia

Day thirty one at Fish Eaters.

Day thirty one at The Catholic Company.

Today's readings come from both Imitation of Christ and True Devotion. The Imitation of Christ starts us in a prayer of humility, we come as beggars to God and there is wonder: "But whence is this to me, that You should come to me? Who am I that You should offer Yourself to me?" The answer to these questions expresses a hidden joy that God is merciful, and that God loves us.

That wonder continues in the selection from True Devotion (which is omitted on The Catholic Company page). The "Incarnation is the proper mystery of this practice," of this devotion to Mary, wherein God the Son became dependent on Mary. Further, St. Louis de Montfort writes that Jesus became a "captive and a slave in the bosom of the divine Mary." This expresses the humility of Jesus coming to us "in the form of a slave" (Phil 2:6). It's true that an acceptable translation is that Jesus came to us "in the form of a servant." But Jesus is not a servant for hire, rather he came as a slave of love (which I discuss in a prior post). The term "divine Mary" (the translation of True Devotion by Montfort Publications drops the word "divine," probably to avoid misunderstandings) does not mean that Mary is a god or a divine being, but expresses her perfection by analogy, as we might say, "the meal was divine!" But it also expresses her participation with the grace of God, her cooperation with divine grace. In the eastern Church, this process is called theosis, where we are transformed by God and made divine, not in a metaphysical way, but rather by a transformation into the likeness of God. In a homily at World Youth Day in Toronto, Pope John Paul II said,

We are not the sum of our weaknesses and failures; we are the sum of the Father's love for us and our real capacity to become the image of his Son.

God's grace transforms us. In true devotion, we are asking God (and asking for Mary's intercession) to be transformed through Mary as a model or as the mold in which Jesus was formed. The goal is to form Jesus Christ within us and to be united in love with the Divine.

---

Update suggested by a friend: St. Athanasius writes that theosis is "becoming by grace what God is by nature"

Aquinas 101: Lesson Four

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 4: Why Read St. Thomas Aquinas?

It's an important question. The video was well produced. The selected reading from "Thomism for the New Evangelization" by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, O.P. was also good, but I found the audio difficult to hear: there was a lot of background noise, Fr. White was often not talking directly into the microphone, and I'm growing old, so it's more difficult to hear (but even headphones did not seem to help). 

I've found two links which may help.

* The audio from SoundCloud, Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP: "Why Aquinas Matters: Thomism and the New Evangelization" (July, 2017)

* And a larger excerpt from the book, "Thomism for the New Evangelization" by Fr. Thomas Joseph White, O.P.

The audio and the book excerpt overlap significantly, but they're not the same. In the lecture, Fr. White covers five points, while in the book excerpt, he covers six points. And so obviously, the outline is different even though there is overlap of the ground covered. I'm going to bravely try to summarize the lecture, because I think that's best suited to my mode of learning (which is summarizing what I hear) and I'll  fill in gaps from the book excerpt. I was tempted to quote a lot from the excerpt, but that's changed to a recommendation to read it, and I'll keep to a few quotes. The first quote is this:

How does the intellect provide for our deepest happiness? By giving us ultimate perspective. If you know where your true good lies, you can love that good, and in loving that good, you can remain at peace, even in the midst of the storms of life.

The first point dealt with a unity of knowledge and the crisis of the university. Except for a few rare cases, knowledge at the university level is fragmented into diverse disciplines. That's not a problem except that the parts don't seem to be connected to a whole. The excerpt goes into the degrees or levels of knowledge: first one counts, and so there is mathematics, then the observational sciences, then a philosophy of nature, which, if one goes further, leads to metaphysics and the question about the existence of God (the answer is in the affirmative). Theology gives us knowledge about God, and this is where Aquinas is helpful, since he speaks of the unity of truth (since God is Truth itself), and hence there is a unity of knowledge. And Aquinas is helpful in teaching us how this is so.

The second point is about a deep doctrinal amnesia (and this is internal to the Catholic Church). And as a revert who has returned to the faith, and as a catechist who is trying to remedy this, I know this personally. The Church has a rich treasure, a beauty which does not reside within an overwhelming majority of her members here in the world. In the Internet age, this can be easily remedied, and hence Aquinas 101. Fr. White recommends reading an article of the Summa Theologica each day. St. Thomas will not only teach you the faith, he will teach you a method in exploring the mysteries of the faith on your own.

The third point is about the deep despair of the use of human freedom. What is freedom for? Well, we want to be happy. But that's not so easily obtainable. Learning the virtues (the cardinal and supernatural virtues) and learning to love and being like what you love (i.e. God), this will shape your life toward happiness (I found the excerpt to be helpful here, and both the lecture and the excerpt used the analogy of playing jazz).

The fourth point dealt with religion. It's difficult to be religious in any age, but now secularism is pushing religion into the margins, and secular people point to irrational religious behavior as why this should be so. The other problem is a fear of institutional formats (creeds, and rituals, etc.). It has privatized and abstracted into a "spiritual but not religious." Fr. White points out that we're not angels (not spiritual beings only but both spiritual and animal). We do need a structured rational religion which will help us to avoid superstitious beliefs and behavior. This is also covered in the excerpt provided by the page at Aquinas 101.

What is the Bible about for St. Thomas? Finding out who God is.

And, 

Aquinas has a very deep reading of the Bible, and his beautiful interpretation of the life of Christ in the Summa Theologiae is accessible to anyone who takes a little time to read it.

The final point is about contemplation.  In this culture, we tend to be utilitarian and ask ourselves: is it practical? But we are meant to contemplate (Aristotle saw this). Today, we do low levels of contemplation like XBox or TV. But there is a higher level of contemplation. We could awaken wonder about the world, and thence wonder about God. Fr. White speaks of the "chapel of the heart" (which is good), but also suggests developing a "chapel of the mind."

For Aquinas you begin to contemplate when you encounter a good that your intellect has to ponder, which it can’t fully comprehend. 

And

Contemplation is about making progress intellectually in understanding who God is, so as to become true friends with God.

Knowledge of Jesus: Day Four

Crucifixion by Paolo Veronese, downloaded from Wikipedia

Day thirty at Fish Eaters.

Day thirty at The Catholic Company.

Today's readings come from the Gospel according to Matthew and Imitation of Christ (book II, chapter 12). The Catholic Company omitted the reading from Imitation, which is a shame, since I'm going to quote from it.

It is the Crucifixion, where some people mocked Jesus and reviled him. The soldiers watched and sat down (they had mocked him earlier when Jesus was crowned with thorns). Christ the King is on the cross. It's gruesome. We have put him on the cross.

The Imitation of Christ asks, "Why, then, do you fear to take up the cross when through it you can win a kingdom?" It points out, "To many the saying, 'Deny thyself, take up thy cross and follow Me,' seems hard, but it will be much harder to hear that final word: 'Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.'"

[...] In the cross is salvation, in the cross is life, in the cross is protection from enemies, in the cross is infusion of heavenly sweetness, in the cross is strength of mind, in the cross is joy of spirit, in the cross is highest virtue, in the cross is perfect holiness. There is no salvation of soul nor hope of everlasting life but in the cross.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Three

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 3: What Did St. Thomas Write?

The short answer to the question is: a lot. St. Thomas puts a lot of modern men, who have word processing tools, to shame. His two most famous works are Summa Contra Gentiles (which is apologetics directed to pagans) and Summa Theologica (which is a systematic treatment of theology).

The audio is a continuation of yesterday's lesson on faith entitled "Light of Faith: Why It's Not Irrational to Believe" by Fr. James Brent, OP. In early Christianity, the arguments were over the word of God and what it meant (that is, what is heresy or not), but the modern difficulty faced by the Church is whether God spoke at all. In the lecture, Fr. Brent spoke of skepticism, and the evidentialist objection which is has two premises: 1) it is irrational to believe without sufficient evidence and 2) the mysteries of faith lacks sufficient evidence.

It's hard to see any way to attack the first without appearing credulous, and Catholics claim that Christianity is a reasonable faith. So it's more profitable to go after the second, although it might not be easy, since the standard of "sufficient evidence" is not concrete and fixed. Anyone wishing to disbelieve could simply claim he hasn't heard a sufficient amount of evidence. Still, that's no reason for not trying. Now it's not possible to directly prove that Jesus is God and man, or the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is possible to do this indirectly. The evidence would be the miracles throughout time, the endurance of the Church and her doctrines, and the ability of the faith to transform men and cultures. 

Fr. Brent continued with the idea that faith is a supernatural gift. It has three aspects: 1) what we believe (the content of the faith), 2) the inclination of the will to believe, an instinct of faith, or a movement by the Holy Spirit, and 3) the evidence or reasons to believe. He cautions that the signs given are not proofs, for if they were, then the faith would be a vehement opinion rather than an inclination to trust.

Fr. Brent also included a cool quote (it's cool because it's from the Lord of the Rings): "What you say to me sounds like wisdom, but for something in my heart tells me otherwise." But the important quote is this (from Aquinas' commentary on The Divine Names by Pseudo-Dionysius):

He who is united to the truth by faith knows well how good it is for him to be united to the truth in this way, even though many reprehend him as having gone out of his senses and of being a fool and a madman. For truly it is hidden from those reprehending him for his errors that he has suffered an ecstasy of truth as if placed beyond all sense knowledge and conjoined to the supernatural truth. The believer knows himself to be no fool, as they say, but to be liberated by the pure and unchangeable truth and to be withdrawn from the unstable and changing current of error.

The following are optional links (of which I've not listened):

When Is Religious Belief Irrational? On the Harmony of Faith and Reason | Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP 

Does Science Discredit Faith? | Fr. Gregory Pine, OP 

Thomas Aquinas and the Harmony of Faith and Reason | Thomas Joseph White, OP

Knowledge of Jesus: Day Three

Healing of a bleeding women Marcellinus-Peter-Catacomb, downloaded from Wikipedia

Day twenty nine at Fish Eaters.

Day twenty nine at The Catholic Company.

Today's reading is from Imitation of Christ. The line—"What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity?"—gets my attention because I've taught the Trinity to teenagers preparing for Confirmation (and I've been asked to do so in the future). It's a good question to ask since we all have from time to time, "blindness of heart." And Imitation of Christ directs us, obviously, to imitate Christ.

Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. (Phil 2:5-8)

We empty ourselves so as to be filled with Christ, so that we might imitate Christ. If we were humble, we would recognize our need for healing and we would ask for it. This is a gift from a merciful God. And what should we do in receiving such a gift? Gratitude for it is good. And so is praising God for his mercy. But we can also pass on the gifts of goodness to others, realizing that we're instruments of God's good, not the source of good. "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk" (Acts 3:6).

Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.

Aquinas 101: Lesson Two

Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia

Lesson 2: St. Thomas on Faith and Reason

The audio which is about 47 minutes long is the center of the lesson. It is entitled Is "Faith Irrational? Aquinas on the Rationality of Belief" by Fr. Dominic Legge, OP. Be sure to follow along with the handout provided (the link for it is below the audio). It's a powerful lecture which provides a framework for understanding belief and what it means.

The first part deals with misconceptions about belief. The one that I'm most familiar with is the misconception that faith and reason are contraries (usually skepticism which says faith is unreasonable, and its contrary fideism which rejects science in favor of faith). The opposite error, which I've not encountered, is the idea that the whole of the faith can be explained by reason. The selected reading by Aquinas explains that there are certain truths of the faith which can be reached through reason (such as the existence of God), while there are certain truths which are beyond human reason (such as the doctrine on the Trinity, three persons in one essence).

Fr. Legge then moves on to explain natural belief. He sets this up by outlining "[f]our classical modes of response to a proposition proposed to you": 1) you can doubt that it is true 2) you can suppose it is true (an opinion) 3) you already know (meaning that you have direct access to the facts whether the proposition is true or false) 4) you believe the person (give assent to the proposition as true because you have reasons to believe he is telling the truth). We do the fourth response all the time (examples given: your birth date, people who tell you Istanbul exists, etc.). These beliefs are reasonable. 

And so in the next section, Fr. Legge posits that Christian belief is reasonable. There things which we can know (the preambles of the faith, such that God exists), we acknowledge the limits of our knowing (errors and the impossibility of completely understanding an infinite God with a finite mind), and we've signs which confirm our belief (miracles or the amazing fact that the Church manages to survive despite Christian foolishness over the centuries).

In the final section he talks about supernatural faith. We can understand this infused supernatural faith by analogy with natural belief. These two things are similar, but not the same thing. The supernatural faith is a gift from God; it is not something we can attain through human efforts. I think inspiration is a good word to describe the effect of supernatural faith: a light bulb goes on inside the mind, and you see the the truths of the faith in a way which is life changing.

If you cannot gain faith through human efforts, there is always the option to pray for it. This prayer by St. Anselm of Canterbury is a good one:

Teach me to seek you,
and reveal yourself to me as I seek:
For unless you instruct me
I cannot seek you,
and unless you reveal yourself
I cannot find you.
Let me seek you in desiring you:
let me desire you in seeking you.
Let me find you in loving you:
let me love you in finding you.

As I was going through this lesson, it seemed to have a lot of information to take in. I've ploughed through this in order to post something, but it's something I think I'll need to re-visit to be sure that this is clear in my mind, such that I could present it myself in a clear way.