What Did Aquinas Get Wrong? W/ Fr. Gregory Pine
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 фев 2020
- As much as we'd love St. Thomas to have been perfect, as a human thinker he was subject to error in his arguments. Fr. Pine goes over where he disagrees with Thomas and the sections of the Summa that make him raise his eyebrows.
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodworker.com/ (use discount code: mattfradd)
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #19...
📘 We Wrote a Book Together on Marian Consecration!: www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecr...
⭐ The Thomistic Institute: thomisticinstitute.org/
Aquinas 101: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Godsplaining podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
Fr. Ryan Erlenbush makes a compelling case that St. Thomas did in fact believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He wrote a great article on his blog "New Theological Movement" about this topic. He states that St. Thomas had three stages of thought on this matter. The first stage was to be found in his commentary on Peter Lombard's Sentences where St. Thomas affirmed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The third stage was to be found near his death in his commentary on the Angelic Salutation where he again affirmed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The second stage which was to be found in his most famous work, the Summa. Fr. Ryan states that the only reason that St. Thomas held the position that he does in the Summa was because of a mistaken understanding of the process of generation and the formation of the child in the womb (namely that the body was conceived before the soul). Fr. Ryan also provides citations for his argument that St. Thomas did in fact accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on more occasions than rejecting it.
There’s nothing wrong with saying that a Doctor of the Church has erred in reason and judgement. Especially when he’s just a guy. He is not a divine man that cannot error.
All people have flaws. We're only human.
Bad takeaway from the video. St. Thomas is not “just a guy. He’s the Angelic Doctor and the Doctor of Doctors.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Despite us thinking we are wiser than the saints that came before us, I think it's safe to say that our egos may be to blame for our overconfidence in our own understanding. Possibly caused by a society that systematically pats our ancestors on the head for their so-called ignorance and naiveté. God knows far more than we can imagine, and grants that knowledge to the saints in His own perfect measure.
May God humble us all (especially me) enough to make us truly wise, like His saints.
Agreed.
Super based. Imagine thinking the best minds in humanity were just too dumb and that we know better because of... anti-catholic "science" :S
Very interesting video, I liked it
I wouldn't stick my neck out on the notion we have (being science) has a complete understanding of "Time" today as well
Of course it is not. But we know some processes that must have taken millions to billions of years to take us where they are today. Now God could have just spontaneously made everything midboil so to speak, but that reduces Creation to a sleight of hand and risks making God seem deceptive or some kind of divine trickster, which, does not breed trust in Him and does not fit His nature as we know it. Also we would have to ask well why would God do that and set the processes of nature so literally against Sacred Scripture in an area asl universal as time. It creates a ton of both theological and philosophical issues to simply presume there is some dissonance. Of course, only God knows what we may discover tomorrow. The processes of temporal Creation are as yet incomplete afterall and our understanding is yet incomplete. So I hold the allegorical method as my running hypothesis, the literal sense will by its nature and the nature of the Most Holy Bible will always be the null (default) hypothesis against what is being considered and is always there to fall back upon and the one unless unmistakably challenged that we ought go to first. This is all my humble opinion and intuition as a very fallible scholar however. Reject and throw our whatever here may conflict with Holy Mother Church and I would say what ever risks scandal for you. I have no authority so the words stand or fl on their own merits and flaws alone. Any merits be from God, the flaws are mine alone.
God bless all you who read this.
The alternative of course is that our reason is simply utterly unreliable, but if that be the case we can reasonably cast doubt upon all philosophical and theological notioning as well.
@@LostArchivist Topics discussed with reason inside of Holy Mother Church should be applauded, outside of it should always be questioned. I would interject in speaking to Sciences process of measuring the age of the universe.
We can surly say through reason that the age of the Earth cannot be older than the age of the parts outside of it, being the Universe. Which brings us to a supernatural element where Science stumbles... How do you determine your age, being the universes age/ Earths age, when you are formed from something ageless (being energy/matter)? We know the Universe is made up of matter/protons and more but we know it cannot be made or destroyed by man. We are dealing with something without proportions to time- therefore, how can you determine your age in time when everything that sprung from it is timeless?
I am not sure who is responding- if it is Fr Pine or not, but I thank you for the response and God bless
@@soulthompson6698 And members of Hily Mother Church have been critical researchers such as Gregor Mendel as the father of genetics, Fr.Georges Lemaitre who first proposed the theory of the Big Bang as well as countless others. Therefore, there is no clear distinction between these things. And I am a member also of the Church, so these matters can be articulated from within the Church. Besides that, time is a part of the physical universe, it is not divine, thus affairs within the world here below that is within time being called temporal as they pass from one thing to another. And simply because God made me does not mean my age is unknowable and humans before be had the same and as we share in death and corruption with this world in our fallen nature, it is of us to know the passing of things. It can be known because we experience it and can know it in other things. Also, we can measure time based on the speed of light through a vacuum which, is constant and due to the expansion of space which alters its wavelength as it passes through it.
@@soulthompson6698 Entropy is a basic function of physical existence in the Universe, all things slowly pass away into chaos, i.e. this world is doomed to pass away as Holy Scripture says it will. It also makes sense logically since sin has disconnected the world from the source of all life, Who is God, its Creator. The Universe is like a picked flower, beautiful but ultimately doomed to wilt away and dry out of all life.
Regarding the six days of creation:
FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL:
"God [...] creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body."
THANK YOU FOR THIS. So few are aware of this infallible statement of the 4th Lateran Council
@@elcidcampeador9629 It does not read as a literalistic interpretation.
@@johnnotrealname8168 It says all creatures were created at once from nothing. If we were created "at once," there couldn't have been any time delay to allow for evolution
@@elcidcampeador9629 "at once from the beginning of time" Stop misquoting. It means they were created from or starting at the beginning of time which would fit in with Saint Augustine's conception of Time.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Please research videos on creation on the sensus fidelium youtube channel, and also on the kolbe center for creation website. The issues with Saint Augustine are discussed. Saint Augustine did not support darwinian evolution or the philosophy/theology behind it
St Thomas was right about enough for me to still be a big fan. As somebody else said he was just a human. I’m a scientist and we get things wrong frequently.
I actually really like St Thomas take and ideas on angels regardless of how far fetched it seems, what do I know?
I was listening to an audio book on St Thomas earlier and said a prayer to him
Then this video “came up” on RUclips, like it does, so I’m far more disturbed by that things which St Thomas said which may or may not be right. His intentions were good.
Not so sure about the intentions of Google / RUclips
But I like the idea of this channel, so you’ve got a sub
Sara! Great minds created by God think alike! Keep praying to St. Thomas Aquinas! 🔥 ♥️
St. Thomas’s doctrine on Angels is not “far fetched”. It’s a genius synthesis of what we know about Angels from Scripture, Fathers and Tradition.
Also you can’t say “right enough”. Aquinas should be considered right about everything unless there is a really good reason like contradicting Church teachings which is extraordinarily rare to the point of nonexistent.
What did Saint Thomas say about holiness of the lay people?
As a man with a degree is science, there is no evidence for evolution, and it violates God principal of efficiency; God creates in as many days as He chooses. He chose six. 🔥 ♥️
Regarding the six days of creation:
"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep."
- Leo XII, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae (1880)
doesnt have the notae for infallibility
@@estebanmoeller what is that
@@JohnCenaFan6298 the document does not have the characteristics for infallibility. Cf. Lumen Gentium n.25
You are arguing against evolution right?
Actually Adam was formed from the dust of the earth
didnt he affirm Limbo?
Matt, I am just curious. You are obviously a big fan of Aquinas. My question is being that you are a Byzantine Catholic, you venerate Eastern Orthodox Saint, Saint Gregory Palamas every second Sunday of Great Lent. Aquinas taught Absolute Divine Simplicity and Palamas taught the Essence-Energy distinction. How do you reconcile the two? Is Blessed Duns Scotus and the Formal Distinction your solution? Thanks.
I dont think Matt venerates Palamas. He was on stage once and a guy said "for Aquinas and Palamas!" Matt retorted "for Aquinas and death to his enemies!"
Zayan Watchel so does Matt not attend his Byzantine Church on the second Sunday of Lent? Because on the Second Sunday of Lent in the Byzantine Churches it’s called Palamas Sunday. Also Matt must hate Blessed John Duns Scotus as well then...
@@djfan08 divined simplicity is a dogmah and philosophically certain. I will not speak for Matt's personal devotions, but Palamas is wrong and I wouldnt venerate him
Zayan Watchel then you are condemning all the Byzantine Catholics who venerate Saint Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent. Also Absolute Divine Simplicity causes so many problems. As a Latin you are much better off believing Blessed John Duns Scotus teaching of the Formal Distinction.
@@djfan08 could u give a brief summary as to how scotus reconciles these two people
Acquinas is right about meat causing increased wet dreams. I've had friends and RUclipsrs who mention that meat is a huge catalyst for that in some people.
beer in most
I think there's some basis to this. Meat consumption fuels sexual desire in the same way that fasting controls desires.
are y’all fr??
It happens to me. Actually people told me to abstain from carbohydrates and eat meat and animal fat to improve testosterone.
Thomistic biology, physics-is universally considered bad. And by “physics” I don’t mean the Aristotelian kind-such as the proper categorical distinctions of cause, or matter, etc.
Animals do not benefit from the beatific vision
His theology of Christ's body in the tomb is wrong
Eating meat does lead to heightened levels of concupiscence as it has high levels of zinc
“Wrong for the right reasons” is still wrong. Even though St.Thomas is a Doctor of the Church, he was still a human being subject to error and sin. Thank God for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception!
"Still 'wrong'." Yeah, that's an equivocation. The rest of your post is a giant strawman.
Stop the Aquinas bashing. The Immaculate Conception is a divinely revealed dogma which Aquinas couldn’t possibly be certain about given it was not revealed yet. This doesn’t justify calling him “just a human” to undermine the rest of his teachings.
Seems stuck on judging a philosophy on whether it feels right according to modern feelz.
Glory to Jesus Christ - While on the one hand it seems absurd that hell is in the center of the earth, on the other hand, who can say? The psalms say that the sun is God's tabernacle, for example. It reminds me of when I was a kid. I figured heaven was inside of the sun and hell was in the center of the earth. We may think that's childish, but on the other hand, why? Those of us familiar with the Eastern Tradition know that all creation is a theophany (or manifestation) of God. We know that the entire world, because of the Incarnation, has been 'sacramentalized' in a mysterious sense. St. Ephrem says that Christ mingled with the waters of the earth when He entered into the Jordan to be baptized and compares this to the mingling of God and man when man receives the Eucharist. Am I preaching pantheism? Of course not. But I am saying God is everywhere present and He fills all things and the Kingdom has been united to this earth, though not fully perfected, in some mysterious way. A sacramentalized world means that a dichotomy of supernatural vs. natural is not the only way to view the world around us; rather, we can boldy say that the material is spiritual - a classic example would be the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the energies of the Spirit mediated through holy water at baptism, light from blessed candles, mankind in whom God dwells, and so, more generally, creation in whom God dwells (for man is made up of the elements of creation - material and spirit). Perhaps in the material sense we would only find molten magma in the center of the earth, but in the spiritual sense perhaps we find the abode of demons. Perhaps we find a ball of flaming gas in the center of the sun or perhaps in the spiritual sense we find the firmament of heaven, the abode of angels and saints, God's tabernacle. Let's dream like children!
Animals can go to heaven I think. Think about it before sin Animals in the garden of Eden didn't feed on each other. The garden had enough sustainance already. This shows at least that they too had the souls to be affected by the effects of sin. The bible study of this is quite long so I couldn't possibly explain it fully here as I actually forgot the passages.
@Qwerty no arguments from me there about the only rational soul being man
Fr. Ripperger says in one of his talks(I think it might have been the one on evolution but I'm not sure) that every living thin has a soul including plants however, only people have immortal souls. Everything else animals included simply cease to exist.
@@lelavelion1356 fair enough, I disagree because Ive heard other biblicist give strong arguments to the contrary. An example is how animals in Eden didn't eat each other until Sun infected the earth. Now animals hunt each other as a result. I'm not too good at giving the argument but I've come to believe animal souls might be there in heaven
Everything. He did not provide proof that a rabbi who roamed the fields of Judea would even understand christianity.
❤❤❤❤
Maybe I remember wrong, but didn't st. Thomas defend the capital punishment for heretics? In that case I think it was the most wrong thing he wrote/said.
Speculating how angels move stuff is actually a very interesting thing, I can't actually wrap my head around this problem and I thought about it many times.
How is that wrong? That is the teaching of the Church.
@@marcuscaballarius2159 point please the passage of the catechism were it say that.
What did Aquinas get right?
Almost everything he borrowed from Aristotle (except for the science stuff).
His Five Ways.
I go with Saint Thomas Aquinas not only because he’s a doctor the church Because the Lord himself told him that he wrote well of Him and even Saint Thomas Aquinas College out of a straw compared to what he has seen it Heaven!!!...Let’s not get carried away with 21st-century or 12th century the first century God is was and always will be the same throughout the centuries
The same false god that said slamming babies against walls n killing them is actually totally great.
Beautiful hands.
Aristotelian physics sticks out as the most obvious thing Aquinas got wrong. If you read some of his works, it really sticks out whenever you come across some argument that's based on Aristotelian physics (not to be confused with Aristotelian metaphysics).
What is wrong with aristotelian physics?
@@sebastos-modern physics accounts for things more readily and is thus closer to reality
Aquinas is wrong a fair amount, but sadly, Augustine was wrong on a lot more things that really screwed things up for a while, like double predestination and massa damnata and every embryo and baby that wasn't baptized burning consciously for ever. The Church doesn't hold any of that now, but it took a long time to live that out to realize how flawed it was and moving past it led to the uber-Augustinian Calvinist in reaction, the least Christian Christianity imaginable. Where Aquinas went most wrong seemed to be where he tried to make sense of Augustine in these areas, saying well maybe almost everyone burning alive is good, because it'll be like our entertainment in heaven.
He was wrong in his entire theological approach. You will know it by its fruits. Thomism lends itself to arrogance, in a false sense of intellectual superiority. Thomas was stubborn, a dumb ox, and created an idol of his own mind, and departed from the mind of Christ, the mystical theology of the Church Fathers and of Catholic tradition all up until then. Scholasticism is a plague, you don’t understand God through reason, you only know Him through having the nous enlightened by His uncreated grace.
I think the 500 pages of mindless speculation about angels might be a good start. Not to mention all the nonsensical influence from Aristotle.
Nonsensical? Mindless? Both of these critiques are nonsensical and mindless. Aristotle had an incredibly well put together epistemology
@@Thedisciplemike Not sure where you studied philosophy, but in the grownup world, Aristotle is widely recognized as an influential figure who essentially got everything wrong. Aquinas is widely regarded as a lunatic and obscurantist. So let’s not kid ourselves.
@AntiCitizenX no, Aquinas is not regarded as a lunatic in any philosophical endeavor that i am aware of. If you have some theories and can provide evidence of a 12th century persons lunacy i am all ears. Have you even read the Summa? It is some of the most richest, clearly written, well spoken, and enlightening text the world has ever seen. And thats not just my opinion. So tell me what exactly was wrong with it.
Also, if youre speaking of Aristotle’s biology maybe. But tell me the logical error of his epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, and politics. If you start with a hyper reductionist materialist worldview, i can see why you might disagree with his biology. But thats only a smidget of his work.
Youre coming across as someone who seriously has no idea what youre talking about
@AntiCitizenX "widely regarded". oh the age old logical fallacy.
@@Thedisciplemike It is not a fallacy to point out an objective matter of fact. I never once said or implied that popular opinion should determine the facts of the matter; Only that Aquinas and Aristotle are not well respected. It is therefore a very bad starting point to build an entire presentation around these guys without acknowledging the broader context. The mere fact that you failed to grasp this distinction/nuance would only seem to further reinforce my point. Instead of hurling dumb insults, maybe try paying attention to attention to all that philosophy you pretend to like.
So TA was a bad scientist? Maybe. Maybe Shakespeare was a bad actor or Julius Caesar was a bad lawyer, So what? Sad to see a member of the Order of Preachers criticize TA, leave that to the Jesuits!
He wasn’t criticizing St. Thomas, in fact he’s praised him more times than I can count. This is one instance where he talked about things St. Thomas got wrong.
One can't criticize mistakes?
Don't worship Aquinas. Likewise, don't treat his works as infallible.
What a bunch of nonsense... With all the real modern knowledge, wasting time on a superstitious guy from centuries past makes no sense.
talk about nonsense, u have no idea what u r talking about
You're clueless. You've never read a page of Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas is one of the smartest people to ever live. I am not a Catholic. I am not even a Thomist. I reject a lot of Thomas' metaphysical and religious beliefs. You and I are but peons compared to Thomas' intellect.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl He sounds like a moron to me, but nevermind that. It's objectively true that he didn't have access to modern knowledge, and that he speculated A LOT.
It doesn't matter how smart someone is. When people start speculating without data, they will have a strong tendency to produce nonsense.
There's no justification for wasting our time on Aquinas, EVEN IF he was the smart fellow you think he was.
Our current “modern knowledge” was influenced my Aquinas. He’s part of the Western philosophical tradition.
Aquinus is right ! Eating meat definetly leads to hightened level of desire for some more meat !
I never thought of it like it, brilliant