Catholicism's sound balance of faith and reason was very attractive to me when I converted. Especially the anti-scientific and fideistic attitude of some forms of American Evangelicalism stood out to me as a big red flag. If christianity is true, it speaks to the whole of reality: the sciences, the arts, philosophy, society, culture. In other words it's truly universal and therefore also truly 'catholic'. In that sense, Thomism is THE catholic philosophy par excellence: combining the whole of scripture and tradition under the guidance of natural reason and supernatural revelation in a single synthesis.
He used the Fathers and a little bit of Plato. So, of course he continued in the same tradition of Christian neo-platonism. But that's already completely different from "reinterpreting it". It's not as if he just took Plotinus and rearranged his philosophy if that's what you're getting at. He systematized what Pseudo-Dionysius, John of Damascus, Augustine and the Cappadocians said into a single philosophy. And if you think he just collected patristic quotes or didn't have anything to add beyond that, I cordially recommend you to read an introduction to Aquinas' thought. And it's much more than just "saying the same things" his predecessors said. St Thomas' philosophy is largely Aristotelian, which was also quite novel at his time.
American Evangelicalism has done more to drive people AWAY from Church than any Atheist ever could with their Straw Man tacticts. But the only real difference is that one talks for God's Straw man and the other against it.
Craig Walkins pints with Aquinas is weak man. That guy isn't a Thomist. Being a Thomist is an expression of discipleship to the doctrine of the master, St. Thomas Aquinas. Fradd just isn't that guy. He's too willing to entertain nonsense. Brian should do Taylor Marshall. He's much closer to the real deal of Thomism.
Jacob A oh, I agree with you on Dr Marshall! He’s the man! I saw Matt Fradd made a “woop woop” comment here and thought I’d throw that out for the fun of it. I’m a Tradition Latin Mass guy and DTM has helped me on my journey with Thomist theology. 👍🏻
Could this be a celebration of us putting human tradition on par with Scripture? Was told by my spiritual director before a vocations weekend last fall that there is no difference. Troubled me greatly, and still does. If the Bible is not sufficient for our theology and Christology then it is just a collection of books that contains error. In Christ, Andrew
@@Ezekiel336-16 Are you a Protestant? Because your argument makes you sound as much. No where in this video was St. Thomas put on par with Holy Scripture.
@@aretrograde7745 Not even remotely close to one, but the Lord has placed the Supreme value of Scripture on my heart so I understand why you might think so. And, yes, you are correct, the video did not explicitly or directly put St Thomas on par with Scripture but it did mention the council of Trent placing his summary on "the high alter next to it" before saying it was second only to it. When that reality, presuming Brian is correct, is put together with the rest of what he said about tomism becoming the new foundation for our faith, and what I was told by my spiritual director about there being no difference between Scripture and tradition, it certainly seems that our love affair with tradition is quite problematic. Hopefully my explanation helps you to see where I'm coming from and the dots I'm connecting with this. We need to get back to basics and stay there as faithful Catholics and stop being concerned with being able to convince anyone and everyone about Jesus and the Truth. Some do not believe because they do not want to or have been made blind by our Lord. But that's in Scripture and up to us whether or not to accept and believe (follow). In Christ, Andrew
Andrew I would say don’t be discouraged and it should always be the case that scripture is above even St.Thomas Aquinass works.Yet there have been few works made that could come close to as thorough or as understandable to the trained mind as the Summa Theologica.They started it as the most thorough and best treatise on Catholic thought which all comes from scripture.The Summas strength is the great influence scripture has on the work.
@@danielnuncio693 Thanks brother I appreciate it, because it is highly discouraging to hear anyone even hint at something being on par with Scripture. Too many people don't read what Jesus and the Holy Spirit have in store for them in Scripture because they were told to ask a priest like my parents and grandparents or want to just look things up in the catechism or elsewhere - like the summa. It's lazy faith and it does far less to bring someone truly close to our living God because they are not engaging and wrestling with what He says. Instead they are engaging or wrestling with what someone else says. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, while asking for the help of others along the way, we are not supposed to have them work it out for us. That's the job of the Holy Spirit and the word of God who feeds our souls. I don't feed others with me, I feed them with Him. I'm Christ, Andrew
@@BrianHoldsworth To be honest, despite enjoying most of your content I thought that this was not your best work. Please let me explain below I’ve been following you since your channel first began and consider you a kindred spirit who is intellectually rigorous and commonsensical. Bottom line, the choice between a Saint, especially one with as much magisterial backing as St. Thomas, and a modern theologian is an easy one. Yet we should also look to the spirit of that saint to ensure we are in line with him. I was disappointed by this video because it is not even handed like your other work and like St. Thomas himself. That being said, I know you were yourself responding against a one sided view, I just don't want you to fall into the same approach brother! For example, it was the “New” (neo - latin for new) scholastics who branded the 20th century resourcement movement as “New” Theology when in fact those theologians never claimed to be pursuing the new for the sake of new and in fact sought the old (Scripture and Fathers). Ironically the new scholastics gave their own movement the name new (I only add this because there was some uneven rhetoric around the term New). The so called Nouvelle Theology wasn’t so much new as rather centered on a return to the Bible and Fathers as can be evidenced by their works. Again, this is simplified for the sake of brevity. For example, a perusal of the Catechism of Trent will show that scripture and the fathers were used, but just not as extensively (especially in regard to the Eastern lung of the Church) as you might see in the new, nouvelle theology inspired Catechism of today. Now was there bad that came from the movement and indeed some bad novelty? Yes. Was there bad that came from Neo-Scholasticism, especially in being too closed off to modern man? Yes. In truth many of the Nouvelle Theologians (not the radical ones) were trying to continue the approach of St. Thomas in terms of meditating on the sources of the faith and then bringing it into a language for the people of their time. Many of the Nouvelle Theologians were trying to do the difficult work of engaging the culture to bring out the good in it. This is unquestionably the approach of St. Thomas but not always of neo-Thomists. The Summa would only be a hundred pages long if it were not for the fact that so much time is spent taking the good from others and then trying to show where bad ideas were right and where they went wrong. When you read the Summa 90% of the time, you’re actually reading wrong opinions and then a long response that brings out the best in them. This is the nuanced approach we need today. St. Thomas knew that the evil he removed from the bad ideas was a metaphysical “nothing” that was corrupting the good that it was parasitic on. He did the hard work of a surgeon in removing the evil lifeless “nothings” in order to save the good for he loved goodness, truth and existence itself so very much. Many today, seem to want the simple answer of condemning entire thought systems without the hard work of figuring out what is good. They do not dig for the great pearl of truth like holy St. Thomas. Everything is clear in the shallows, and it is not there that St. Thomas spent his days, thanks be to God that he waded into the depths and found truth wherever he could. God bless St. Thomas. If the good theologians including JPII and Pope Emeritus Benedict have not done it perfectly like the genius that is St. Thomas, at least they have tried to work with that wholly Catholic spirit of his which sought to save truth everywhere. Not to get too sidetracked but I think the use of the magisterium in the video also lacks evenhandedness, at least in how it was approached rhetorically. On one hand, we have the pure encyclical (which I like!) of Pope Leo 13th (hopefully St. soon!) an example of the exercise of the ordinary magisterium and then when the Second Vatican Council is mentioned (an example of the extraordinary magisterium requiring greater submission) all the talk of it endorsing the nouvelle theology is couched in terms that they “won the day”, “sneaked in” and changed everything for the worse i.e only the human element of the council was highlighted and at that it was an overly simplistic and overly critical description of what really happened. Additionally, the language around the magisterium censoring the “new” theologians is all implied as being completely correct and prudent, but when the same magisterium namely, St. Pope John 23rd, lifted those condemnations it is all of a sudden, implied to be a bad or sketchy magisterial decision. As mentioned at the beginning, the church censored many saints like St. Thomas, St. Francis, St. John of the Cross and St. Ignatius of Loyola, we have to make a prudential judgement about the correctness of those condemnations and often the hindsight of centuries helps. Not to belabor it too much but simply put, one cannot have it both ways when it comes to magisterium. There is obviously a lot more that can be said, but all I want to focus on is the fact that this kind of approach ultimately ends in turning oneself into their own magisterium which is the essence of the evil of both Modernism and Protestantism in the first place. Against the Protestants and Modernists we admit that there is a human element at work in the Church, even in the ecumenical councils. Read St. Gregory Nazianzus on the treachery and politics behind the ecumenical council of Constantinople to get a clear idea that the human is at work in even the ecumenical councils but we also know that the Spirit is present with wings outstretched as well. Because we live in a time where to be moderate simply means you’re hated by both sides, I will add that I love reading Thomas, the Fathers, the Bible (indisputably the best/most important resource on this list) and the most recent works of the Popes (JPII and Benedict) Lagrange and De Lubac. JPII would seem to be an answer to the recent “Either Ors” highlighted in Catholic Blogosphere presentations of Neo Thomism and Nouvelle Theology. JpII, this recently canonized Saint, was at once a Thomist (trained by Lagrange himself) but also heavily influenced and a key propagator of the nouvelle theology along with Pope Emeritus Benedict. Ironically, the video only indicated that St. JPII was a Thomist but neglected to show that he was also a Nouvelle theologian as well (mainly because the video had already labelled Nouvelle Theology as basically heretical/sketchy so it’d be bad rhetorically to immediately admit that a canonized saint and pope was all about it). I come to a close with the quote from the Dominican Thomist Sertillanges, (who himself said to focus foremost, though not only, on the Summa and the Catechism of Trent) “An essential condition for profiting by our reading is to tend always to reconcile our authors instead of setting one against another…it is futile (and he implies much easier) to linger endlessly over differences; the fruitful research is to look for points of contact” The Intellectual Life pg 164. That is the approach of both Catholicism and St. Thomas Finally, to be more of a moderate in today’s atmosphere I feel like the psalmist who said “I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war” (Ps 120:7). The beautiful “both and” of Catholicism seems to be narrowing into an “either or.” I didn’t leave Protestantism just to end up getting that type of thinking all over again. Forgive me for anything I wrote in error, for the many English errors and for the error of being longwinded, God bless the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. St. Thomas pray for us. St. JPII pray for us. St. Michael the Archangel pray for us
Rahner, Kung and Congar were and remain despicable heretics. They were the masterminds behind the Robber's council known as Vatican II . The Vatican II Church that currently hails from Rome today is undoubtedly the Whore of Babylon prophesied in scripture. Get out of Her.
Regardless of its current state, you can't be a catholic with out belonging to the catholic church. It is the mystical body of Christ, and it will always be. It shouldn't be a surprise that the church falls on dark times, after all its members are human and susceptible to error and sin; and we have also been warned by the Lord himself and numerous saints that there will be false Shepards. It isn't the first time that the members of the church have been in error. But the church itself as the mystical body of christ will never be in error. Christ will always triumph. The church won't lose us, it is us who will lose the church. As catholics it is important now more than ever that we remain in the church, that we don't let the corruption of the times sway us away from the body of Christ. Even if there are those amongst the clergy, even in high positions, that are spreading heresies, we musnt be schismatic, or disrespectful towards the authority of the church. Christ appointed them for a reason. We can only do our best to follow the gospel and live a virtues life, and thing will get better. The church will remain, greater in glory than ever before. We just have to hold the faith as best as we can.
@Jean Belmondo No. That's sedevacantism. The Catholic church has suffered bad popes before; a true Catholic, a person truly devoted to Jesus Christ, does not leave His church. We suffer through it, as it is His Will to send bad priests, bishops and popes for for testing, punishment and whatever else may be in His Holy Will for His people.
I was raised by Franciscans, yet even I know that anyone who considers himself Catholic MUST read Aquinas. He is often very legalistic and I don’t always agree with his assertions but he is a MUST READ for Catholics.
Malik Aquinas isn’t always right. But he usually is, and his method of synthesising Aristotle with scripture and Patristics is the definitive way of doing Catholic theology. Catholics who wish to disregard Aquinas altogether are almost always modernists.
@@Sue-i3g no. As I said, St Thomas is not correct about everything but his theological framework and approach is absolutely essential for any serious or rigorus theological study
Franciscan Spirituality sees everything in creation -- people, movements, places, the environment, and the cosmos itself -- can reveal The Almighty. A sacrament is an exterior sign of an interior reality. It is hidden so normally we cannot see it. But under this principle, the division between sacred and secular is erased: Everything is sacred, because all comes from the Lord. I suppose in some sense sacramentality of Tolkien could be seen as a reflection of Einstein’s panentheism. “Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty." -- Albert Einstein
Even if Jesus appeared to me I would not, COULD not bow to him. It would be unconscionable to praise a being who would let people wind up in Hell. I was catholic until age twenty-four. I was the guy at confirmation class who had to keep quiet and let others answer questions because I already knew so much. I see Christianity as a bleak, depressing worldview, and The Bible (Which I have read from cover to cover) as full of truly absurd stories. What is your response to that, Luc? In the four years since converting to atheism I have been much happier. Any comments,
Michael Flores My take on it is that He let's us choose Him, or choose away from Him, as we please. Hell is simply a place where God is not there, where human beings can choose to go. As for the idea that He let's people go there, therefore He's evil, I feel like if I was forced out of my own will to be with Him forever, not being able to choose Him by my own will, being in communion with Him wouldn't really be the same, and I think my own feelings on the matter would be different by a long shot. This notion is reflected by the idea of marriage. For it to actually be valid, there has to be consent for both people, and in the same way, if I was coerced into marrying someone, even if it was God, it wouldn't be a relationship. And if heaven is been in communion with God for an eternity, and I by my own will did not choose that, it still wouldn't be valid, therefore heaven itself, wouldn't bare any fruit and I wouldn't receive the graces that God offers me in the first place, because I didn't want it in the first place. He's not a mythological creature who's going to shove things down my throat when He sees fit, He reveals Himself and allows us to choose for ourselves what we want. Sure, God loves and cares for everyone, but I think a lot of people miss the point that it's supposed to be a Relationship. If you just expose yourself to what He has revealed to you with a presupposition against Him, well ofc you're not going to find anything at all, and you're just wasting your own time. Those who never wanted to take part in the faith in the first place, those who let the words of His teachings bounce off of them like a brick wall, not truly seeking, will easily find it freeing that they leave the Lord, who is the embodiment of all things good, because He goodness, and those who ACTUALLY seek Him without kidding themselves will find the answers that they please. In fact, I think that the exact opposite would be depressing, just being forced into a marriage and all, rejecting any of His offers but being forced to anyway. But at least, now I get to choose to love and serve Him.If He came down from heaven again, and went in front of you, and revealed all the answers in the world and proved to you that He was God, it would contradict the very basis of who He is, because there would require no effort of faith on your part. So I guess if He did do that, you probably wouldn't bow, but for different reasons maybe. God bless you.
@@michaelflores9220 Maybe you don't realize, but your thinking is completely distorted and ambiguous. On the one hand you condemn Christ for allegedly sending people to Hell. On the other hand you declare that Christ bringing salvation from Hell leads to a "bleak, depressing worldview". Thus you profess one thing and its contrary. My explanation is you've embraced too much of s8n's truths. They poison you, this is what s8n does, he lures, he poisons, he kills (spiritually). But you're in good company, if I be allowed a little sarcasm, the great Martin Luther wrote similar things and he too had read the Bible (too much) and ended up depressed and bound for Hell (saying so himself). Luther too called Jesus names because Luther couldn't practice his own faith so instead of admitting that and looking for practical solutions, he found nothing better than messing up the faith. Unlike ML though, you're still alive: check your own understanding before criticizing God and things will start to appear less bleak and less depressing. God bless you.
I can distinctly remember dropping out of a medieval philosophy class as a masters student because I had looked over the syllabus on the first day and saw that Ockham was on it, but Aquinas was not. I’ve never regretted that decision.
This was an enjoyable video. However, as a Catholic priest, I feel like I should offer an explanatory note. It is certainly the case that Neo-Scholasticism fell by the way side during the latter half of 20th century, and the unintended consequence that resulted from this transition was that some threw the baby out with the bath water (i.e., disregarding St Thomas). No one, however, ever said that St Thomas was irrelevant. In fact, St Thomas is still cited in magisterial texts. The core problem for the prominent theologians that influenced the Second Vatican Council was not St Thomas himself, but how the Neo-Scholastics were utilizing his theology for ends that they held were contrary to his original intent. It became necessary, therefore, for the Church to remind herself that there are other voices in the Tradition which can speak in a complimentary way. As such, when Pope Leo XIII asserted that the theology of St Thomas is definitive, we should not draw from this that we are bound to view St Thomas as synonymous with Catholicism in an exclusive manner. What Leo XIII said of Thomas is equally true in an unofficial sense - that is to say, in the way things are received by the Church but never consciously defined - of the other prominent medieval doctors (i.e., Anselm, Bonaventure, Theresa of Avila, etc). In sum, what the well-grounded theologians of the 20th century desired was a holistic approach to the Tradition of the Church. It was not intended to "disenfranchise" St Thomas or disregard his theology. This is to say nothing of the fact that St Thomas is relative, contingent and beholden to the earlier layers of the Tradition which he drew upon, namely the fathers. If St Thomas was watching this conversation, he would be telling us to use his Summa as a synthesis of, and a supplement to, patristic theology, because those are the real giants whom he stood upon.
wgenitorj, you identify yourself as a Catholic priest. First let me say thank you for your contribution here. I respectfully ask you a question to correct my thinking of 20th century theologians. I have come to the conclusion that some theologians did think St Thomas was irrelevant, even some today. However, not being able to out-think Thomas they tried to reconcile his thought with modernist thought. Most of us Catholics today, not being theologians or in many cases Luke warm catholics, cannot recognize the contradiction that poses. Am I off the mark here? Again, thank you for your contribution here and God Bless you, Neto
I would say that maybe not on the level of magisterial documents or within church teaching but it is a more and more common thought that the church no longer holds Aquinas or Scholasticism as important. It’s an extreme view but it doesn’t seem to be from jut ignorant individuals, but from scholars as well. The information given here is valuable, especially in regard to Pope John Paul Ii
He was a genius but the more remarkable thing is that Aquinas had an encounter with JC and the Lord showed him Heaven in a gracious gesture because Thomas had write so wonderful things about Him. St Thomas Aquinas after that encounter didn't write one mire word, when people asked him why, he explained nothing I have wrote is close enough what the spiritual world and God is about, there are not words to describe the Divinity. I mentioned that because I think that agree with what we often read in the scripture, that for God the more important thing is the more simple, He wants us to have a relationship with Him, and try to imitate Him, all the rest is an add on, it is useful and good but if we don't have a real connection with the Creator no books or knowledge would make up for it. I'm an intellectual myself but I understood that in an inspiration during my time as an adorer.
@@davidtrindle6473They don't require them. The simplest beggar can enter heaven. Jesus' teachings are clear and easy to know. But if you want to truly understand them from a natural law viewpoint you need to educate yourself. That's the price of knowledge, effort. This "verbose" language exists for a reason.
Pretty soon after I was Baptized I told one of my priests that things were often so confusing and unclear that I had decided that I just wasn’t interested in anything that was in conflict with Aquinas (with the exception of the Immaculate Conception and the like of course). He seemed a little bothered by my statement. I didn’t quite realize at the time that I was defining my position in this divide in the Church.
A very similar thing happened to me. I came into the Church thinking all priests were a bunch of Thomists. But when I started talking about how I loved St. Thomas my priest seemed concerned and a bit irritated. Little did I know this problem is very widespread.
St Thomas is difficult to understand, and most priests don’t bother to read and therefore they develop a certain resentment and start disparaging St Thomas. It’s their problem, not St Thomas’.
The Catholic Church still does not have a clear answer for the Immaculate Conception question raised by the good saint Aquinas - at best they propose to compare her soul to the one that did not touch the quick sand of original sin (Duns Scotus), which is not satisfactory because even this explanation suggests that her soul was falling just like ours except it did not touch or go in to the quick sand of original sin. The Blessed Virgin herself says God is her Savior. I do believe in the Immaculate Conception just like St Thomas Aquinas presents it in the Summa Part 3 Q. 27 Anyways, if the Catholic church was really serious then they would have updated the Credo to include the Immaculate Conception dogma, just like the old faithful did. The modern catholic church has become sloppy, it had 2 councils to update the Credo and also the Popes would have had a disclaimer stating their disagreement with St Aquinas into the Summa before making it mandatory in seminaries. The Church needs to eat its own medicine before asking the faithful to eat the same. Majority of the faithful think Immaculate Conception means the conception of Jesus Christ and yet the Church has made it a dogma. If the Church really serious they would have updated the Credo and not just put some obligatory feast day knowing well that most faithful don't know whose conception they are actually referring to.
This is so funny, my highschool had 4 houses which are Lavalla, Champagnat, Xavier and Aquinas but in 1969 the Marist brothers whom ran the school removed Aquinas. Just this year the new Headmaster reinstated Aqiunas
@@bernardoblanchetramirez6032 the Church in New Zealand made a curriculum deal in the 90's with their Anglican counterparts which greatly affected authentic Catholic teaching in Schools. Our religious studies Curriculum is essentially a post modernist Neo - Ecumenism.
@Don Bailey it’s not like the school flat outs decides which topics to censor and which to teach. We were taught Aquinas in my Logics class, not in some theology class (we didn’t had those)
Interestingly, I understand that in the end of his life st. Thomas Aquinas had a heavenly vision so profound that he himself wanted to burn it, as insufficient in describing the greatness of God!
If someone said to me "Give me Küng, give me Rahner" in response to me quoting Aquinas, I think I would laugh out loud. You might as well say "Give me Luther, give me Calvin"
@Vilém Plaček most important of St .Thomas is realism. He forces our minds to contemplate the deposit of faith as a given and the natural world as a given and perfectly good deposit. Rahner, influenced by Hegel, believes he can improve the world towards a ever brighter future. A bit like evolution theorists believe that everything is developing towards something more perfect.
St. Thomas Aquinus converted an abortionist by visiting him in successive nightly dreams. “These children are the ones you killed with your abortions,” said St. Thomas, and Stojan awoke in shock and fear. He decided he would refuse to participate in any more abortions. There are so many stories about the saints, but this one is especially powerful. Faith or Reason? If Truth is the goal, it doesn't matter. God is always speaking to us.
If only more atheists and agnostics read Sumna Theologica they wouldn't have such perturbed and ignorant views on Christianity and the Existence of God and theology. Aquinas is a figure we should All aspire to be, he was wise, charitable, holy and always focused on manifesting the Glory of God through work and writing.
Chris Goomba protestant stuff was a double hit because atheists think Christians are only like them. And Protestants took some original Catholic Christians away from true Christianity.
Wonderful, Brian. I will share this video with my two teenage daughters this weekend, and we will discuss at length. Your work here is much appreciated.
Thankfully, I've never heard someone say "when in doubt, faith it out", but it wouldn't surprise me if some of my "friends" on Facebook have posted a "meme" of it.
Well observed. Aquinas is the man of reality. His knowledge comes from contemplation on the "I am" ie. "being" , in person. All who stray from this path end up in ideology
A question? Did all the doctors and saints of the Church before Aquinas end up in ideology? True, Aquinas did build on them and we should build on Aquinas...but Thomas himself said that all he wrote was a straw meaning, what he said (and he said a lot) is nothing compared to greatness if the Lord...
What do you mean by "end up in ideology"? Would "fail to nurture individual integrity or neglect development of the ability to make moral distinctions and you will fall for some groupthink and rationalize war crimes" be approximate? It bothers me that partisan political commitments so often infect the minds of people who want to be good Catholics.
@@willwalsh3436 ideology is a world view that is rooted in passions rather than humility and reality. In order to see the world as it is, one has to go very deep and true into the self first. A man who is proud will devise a Utopia which will ensure that he is never less than anybody else. This is the root of the equality mania
I studied at Brooklyn Prep and Fairfield University and found in my years with the Jesuits all the answers I need to live a good life. There is balance with the Jesuits. They love God but they also love life, and with Jesuits, you realize how unified all that exists is created by God, not divided as so many want us to believe. I felt that studying with Jesuits who drank at the fountain of Thomas Aquinas was a spectrum into God whom I love. Teilhard de Chardin discovered from rocks to Jesus Christ the journey from life on earth to eternity with God. He even forced our Church to discover the unity of life on earth with life in God's eternity because as a paleontologist Chardin insisted that spirit and flesh are one and therefore to achieve the highest Spirit we need to fulfill life in the flesh. They are one. The Church deliberated excommunicating Chardin until scientists discovered the same things. Chardin discovered consciousness that permeates even rocks and though he never made this comment Chardin caused me to suspect that God's breath permeates His creation. So we should breathe heavily all that comes into our consciousness from that breath, soak up His wisdom, then investigate our experience from the source of our reasoning. This combination has been my long-loved gift from God. Thomas Aquinas might even have been the source of Shakespeare's scope of life from good to evil for in both of their cases, they fulfilled their opus brilliantly because the glass half full is always half empty. They knew this. So do I. cf. my youtube: The Art of Men Acting.
Thank you Brian for providing clarity on what I've found to often be a confusing topic (Scholasticism & Vatican II, etc.) God gave you a great way with words, love your videos!
Given all this we ought to pray for unity in the Church! It's really unfortunate that those who tend to be more traditional (which I would include myself in) are at odds with those who are more "progressive" in the Church. Ideally we wouldn't need these distinctions.
@@FiteTheGoodFight. God creates all life and makes no mistakes whether Muslim or Hindu or Mormon or gay or straight all will be in heaven! The good news!
I know this is an old comment but I'm virtually certain St. Thomas didn't say or write this. If you have a citation I'd be happy to translate it from the Latin
So impressed with this man. I've been thinking for some time that the Church may have taken a wrong turn at the Second Vatican Council. I sure don't have his kind of brain power let alone the intellect of a world class theologian but I know when something is wrong and things sure are not right in the Church today.
@Mike Gardner seek out the SSPX for the true Catholic faith untainted by the Vatican II errors. St. Pope Pius X called Modernism “the synthesis of all heresies.” Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes #12 states “all things on earth should be directed towards MAN as the center and summit.” This is an offense to God. Hope this helps and God bless
Mike, where do you put the Holy Spirit's guidance of and in the Church today? -- this in reference that 'YOU, for some time' thought the Church took the wrong turn at the VII's convocation of its pastors.
Well, fhere were times when there were three popes and when to be a pope you had to bzy that position. Compared to that, what we have today seems rather ok And like @Henry Law wrote, if we take it like that, and if Vatican II was wrong than we have to return way, way back before Trent - to the eight Ecumenical Councils.
Brian Holdsworth, I generally agree with what you are saying, but I tend to think of Catholicism as three major streams (Latin, Greek, & Syriac) with Thomas Aquinas anchoring the Latin Tradition. Aquinas=Catholicism is like saying the Latin Tradition alone= Catholicism. The problem with dogmatizing everything Aquinas says is that it pushes aside other legitimate traditions and orthodox, theological systems within Catholicism, which in turn makes it less Catholic. I think someone like Joseph Ratzinger would agree that Thomas does not have to be the default position for all theological debates which is why he can say that limbo and unbaptized infants in hell was never taught as dogma. If Catholicism is Aquinas, that means we can never disagree with him which would make him infallible. Though I deeply appreciate Aquinas, I would find that problematic. (BTW, you have a great ministry and keep up the good work! This would be a great conversation with Matt Fradd since he is a lover of Aquinas and attends an Eastern Catholic parish.)
The problem is Matt Fradd doesn’t attend a Byzantine Catholic Church because he believes Eastern theology. He’s a Latin who attends a Byzantine Church because he likes the liturgy.
I've learned a little about Catholicism through reading about saints, and their own works in some cases. ... so happy that you appreciate that.....amazing man st Thomas. Nothing I can add to his praises by so many great men over centuries, ... hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah
I'm a Protestant and that isn't going to change, but i will say that I was turned off by some churches' emphasis on emotionalism. I do like the middle ground between faith and reason, which is why St. Thomas Aquinas appeals to me. Btw, modernism sounds similar to post-modernism, except (if I understand your explanation) modernists treat theology and philosophy in an à la carte fashion, where post-modernists deconstruct everything, recognizing no objective truth in any form whatever. As a Protestant, I absolutely do appreciate the Catholic church in the sense that they will not compromise on hot button social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, etc. There can be no compromise - no one foot in Egypt and another in Canaan.
Would you consider making a video specifically on Fides and Ratio and its effects on the Church? It'd be cool to see you develop this video into a Part 2!
Thank you Brian: This video came to me at the right moment, I really do not have time to discuss in which way this video helped me, but from the bottom of my heart I can only say THANK YOU. God bless you my friend. VIVA CRISTO REY!!!!
As much as I am most close to Thomism myself, I do think we should give credit to other scholastic thinkers like Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, Robert Grosseteste, Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, Petrus Aureolus, Giles of Rome or Henry of Ghent. 👍 God bless You! ✝️
What an excellent presentation and summary of the life of Thomism in the history of the Church! I am so pleasantly surprised by a young American man so clearly articulating these important facts of Church history and bringing again together faith and reason to the fore of the American Christian dialogue. Your account actually should help those that are lost on the culture wars and eager to develop their understanding of their faith and transcendental truths. I was formed in this school at the Pontificial University were I studied Law in Argentina but had never heard these exciting facts presented and discussed in such a succinct and precise way here in America. Now I see that something big is brewing in American Catholicism for the benefit of the universal Church. For myself I'll say that there's nothing like delving into the study of Philosophy and Logic and reading about the history of the Church, obviously after having read at least the Gospels (following st. Jerome's dictum!) and picking a science as a hobby (in my case, Astronomy and Cosmology, both of which demand some knowledge of Physics). With these areas of knowledge familiarized, taking on the encyclical Fides et Ratio brings it all together. St. John Paul II was very versed in Philosophy. Thank you! Incidentally, and in line with what our priest has mentioned in a comment below, every Catholic thinker that enriches the Church's history shows also the true integral reality of our faith and the vastness of our God, even in their intellectual tensions, by bringing in their individual points of view and charisms. I say this because as much as we are thankful to Thomas Aquinas for having integrated Aristotle's work with our faith, his thorough system of analysis of reality coexists with that of other great thinkers with whom he actually dissented, such as st. Anselm (re the ontological argument). And as it is, our faith is thus beautifully supplemented for example by having BOTH his proof via the 5 ways and Anselm's ontological argument!
Excellent content Brian, and very clearly expounded. You have a gift of communication. Right on the money! You are doing a great service. God bless you - and your family.
My head just exploded. You are so incredibly smart. I have to watch this again just to grab the handle again. I would like to learn Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin and read the Summa Theologica by Aquinas. You say it’s a okay to rest my hat there. I’m trusting you more and more every time I watch. You moved my life with such an earthquake of knowledge to share. Thanks for holding up a light for me in this tunnel. You are above and yet tangible. Thank God for those like you whom embrace wisdom and truth. -Dave
I am Jewish with mostly Catholic relatives and I can't tell you how well done this lecture is. I could not understand before how St Thomas Aquinas fit into church history and more impotant beliefs.. Now even as I hear Jews comment on any subject it occurs to me I have been for years seeking the St Thomas Aquinas of the Jews to rise up which I feel we many times lack in these debates . Somebody to tell us how we integrate logic with a bible verse,.
What about Maimonides and his Guide for The Perplexed? I'm an atheist and I find Maimonides's doctrines are flawed, but I would think that he is the Jewish equivalent of Aquinas rather than of Aristotle. Aristotle definitely didn't address/embrace theology and religion as intensely as Aquinas and Maimonides did.
Many of the Protestant Reformers were actually Scholastics and held Thomas Aquinas in high-esteem, particularly Peter Vermigli and later 17th century Reformed theologians such as Franciscus Junius and Francis Turretin.
I think your assessment of the Nouvelle Theologie is too one sided and promotes a somewhat false dichotomy. Both Nouvelle Theologie and the neo-scholasticism of Garrigou-Lagrange came as a result of Leo XIII's statement about Thomism. NS was more focused in the substance of St Thomas, while NT was more about applying St Thomas' method to modern times, and both are valid approaches. For St Thomas' day, what he was doing in applying Aristotle to Christian thought was a novel idea, and stood in contrast to traditional Platonism of the centuries before him. It is also worth noting that figures such as Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, de Lubac, and Hans Urs von Balthasar were all also a part of this Nouvelle Theologie and produced great fruits from it (I'm not saying all NT theologians are great or orthodox, but you can find unorthodox theologians in all schools), and popes such as Paul VI and JPII promoted their ideas and positions because they found them to be true and in line with the Faith
Balthasar was basically a universalist; thinking that all are saved, which is heresy. And I have only heard bad things from de Lubac. There has been no good fruit in comparison to the overwhelming abundance of bad from the Second Vatican Council and "the spirit of the council."
The major fruits of it are the fact that they emphasised a return to the original sources of Christianity, primarily Scripture and the early Church Fathers, and they reminded us that Scripture is the source and soul of all theology (cf Dei Verbum, Verbum Domini). Aquinas himself was more a Scripture scholar than an Aristotelian one, since he mainly taught Scripture at the universities, rather than Aristotle, or his own theology. Unlike the neo-scholastics, the NT theologians sought a return to the early sources, and it is thanks in part to their efforts that we have this veneration in our day and age for the early Church Fathers and the Scriptures
@@BuggyrcobraAya Yeah, a return to the sources by lying about the sources and then smuggling in modernism. People have caught on to the absolute nonsense that is and was the Nouvelle Theologie. The new liturgy failed, the new theology failed, it's time to go back to real Catholicism and leave the heretics by the wayside.
I've been a Catholic all my life and have always been interesed in Aquinas' work. The thing I like most about him is that he is the philosopher of the "sober middle ground" and of common sense.
This is a good explanation of the importance of Thomistic theology. Speaking as a Byzantine Rite Catholic, though, I can't help mentally inserting 'Roman' before every use of the term 'Catholic' in this video. The emphases in the Eastern Catholic churches are different, and more reference is made directly to the early Church Fathers and pre-schism theologians. And, of course, this applies also to our engagement with modern theologians, which means we tend to focus on theologians working within our own tradition and not on e,g, thinkers like Rahner or Kuhne who are operating in a space defined by the Roman Catholic confrontation with protestantism.
There's a range of different levels of traditionalism. One guy somewhere drew a fine chart. Let's see: 1) Liberal Novus Ordo, 2) Conservative Novus Ordo, 3) Liberal Indult, 4) Conservative Indult, 5) Ecclesia Dei a.k.a. FSSP/ICRSS, 6) Liberal SSPX, 7) Conservative SSPX, 8) Bp. Williamson's SSPX Resistance, 9) Fr. Pfeiffer's SSPX Resistance, 10) Opinionist Sedevacantism of SSPV, 11) Sedeprivationism of RCI and IMBC, 12) total Sedevacantism of SGG and CMRI, 13) home aloners and 14) Conclavists. The key here is that most of these levels or steps are mixtures of something or oppositions to something. And many modernists pose as traditionalists by mixing Novus Ordo conservatism with a traditional name or concept or two. Then there are generally what one could call smells and bells traditionalists who believe all the modern stuff but appreciate the cultural and artistic value of say TLM or St. Thomas or any other major saint or doctor. "We the people are the Church and all this is our heritage." They never use their brains to get the full idea at once, but instead sample bits and pieces from here and there and pontificate about how important and serious it all is.
Rahner's most consistent resource in all the texts I've read by him is St. Thomas... There is no departure from Thomism. There is a radicalization and accentuation with regard to modern categories, using different languages. But anyone who reads without fear will understand. The Church can no longer simply assume cultural-sociological inheritance of cultic faith. So many feel so threatened in their cultural identity as Catholics that they want the Church to turn into an irrelevant sect with less and less members. It's going to fail, even when those members feel cozy in their judgment that they're the only ones saved. Sad, such emptiness of heart, such blindness to the Spirit. I pray for your souls.
Reason informs faith and faith informs reason and allows us to question and by questioning deepen our faith. "For those with faith, no proof is necessary, for those without, no proof is possible.". St Thomas Aquinas
I’m a great fan of Aquinas - what a breathtaking mind. I also believe that his contribution to the understanding of the Catholic faith is very hard to measure given just how considerable it is. I’m currently reading the “Summa Contra Gentiles” and it contains an extraordinary apologetic blueprint that is still deeply relevant. However, there are inevitably parts of it that reflect the specific culture to which Aquinas addresses himself - and he can make assumptions about the nature of rationality and what we might now call the “common sense” of his time that inevitably no longer pertain. So, I give two and three quarter cheers for Aquinas. Yes, rehabilitate Aquinas - but we must recognise that we must modulate our apologetic to our current circumstances without compromising the non-negotiable framework of the faith.
How did you like the summa contra gentiles? I like the way he starts the book. I shared it with a friend at work one time and asked what he thought. He said that st. Thomas was setting up the boundaries Or the rules of engagement. I thought that was interesting.
A clear and interesting presentation to me, a Catholic on cruise control, not particularly knowledgeable. Thank you! I have just listened to "Lessons in Hope" by George Weigel, about St. John Paul II, and I'm so inspired! I feel Grace working through me. BTW - the book was very hard to put down. It's available on www.audible.com if anyone's interested. Great fun yet very deep.
Wonderful. Thank you. Do you know they have put a line through your bell 🔔 in TH-cam, so I can't hit it but I will make sure to search you. Excellent work. Thank you my friend.
Saint Thomas Aquinas enabled me to see God in the immediate world we live in at the very ground of all being and the "Final Cause" that is at the core and which is not "luv", but LOVE. The most desirable thing. Perfect Being. The church gives us Christ who is Truth and Purpose. What these words really mean. Excellent video as usual Brian. Many thanks.
Thank you for this excellent summation of St. Thomas's importance. Would like to see you drill down a bit more with regards to Neo-Scholastic vs Communio vs Concilium. God bless!
This was very helpful indeed! The harmony between faith and reason is critical to becoming a mature Christian. As a Protestant, I think there is an assumption with many pastors that faith and reason go hand and hand, but not always. Some pastors simply teach from the Bible and it never crosses their mind that there are members in the congregation whose brain thinks rationally and have questions which are not being addressed. Bishop Barron is right when he says the church has dumbed down the teaching, and it is the number 1 reason young people leave the church. We all need a crash course on Thomism (both Protestant and Catholic) and this video is a great start!
I enjoyed watching your video, Brian. I agree with everything you said and did not learn anything new; however, I was impressed by how succinctly you presented the material. Thank you!
You speak at the speed of a Saint Robin Williams. You say so much and network our minds through many interconnected thoughts at the same time. I am a Thomas. I study Ethics and Moral Character Development and Reasoning in my late life PhD. I want ethics to be infused into the Internet like a vaccine. Thank you for bringing me Thomas and a history of the church from faith to reason, to faith, to reason and to the dialectic God graced us with in his goodness and our love for goodness.
Thanks Brian for explaining a very complicated theological & historical subject in a clear-cut way; it's a clearer to me now and I feel that I can and actually want to read 'St. Thomas Aquinas and not think "boring"
I really appreciate the historical backing you gave the Second Vatican Council. I was born while it was taking place, went to Catholic grade school while its changes got implemented. Your account puts names to the 2VC - real people battled during it, which you put the names to - the first time I ever heard such details this way. I think 2VC remains controversial. For me, it introduced a soft, lazy, unaccountable element to living faith that makes it really easy to lose the encounter of personal sacrifice, humility, and sometimes aggravating patience it takes to appreciate Christ's suffering and sacrifice of his life out of incomprehensible love of us - of me. Now, how do we personally know when the answer is more faith and when the answer more reason? That is an eternal challenge.
Hi Brian - Excellent video. It gave me a renewed appreciation of St. Thomas Aquinas' thought as an Eastern Catholic. Please accept the following generously as I try to make it with humility: I wanted to just make a small correction to the notion that Thomism is synonymous with Catholicism. Thomism clearly has a relevance for all Catholics (East and West), but I think it's probably more appropriate to say that Thomism is synonymous with Roman [Western] Catholicism, but I wouldn't say that Thomism as a theological expression is synonymous with Byzantine/Syriac [Eastern] Catholicism. While Thomism is not contradictory with Eastern theology, but understood as complimentary, it is nonetheless quite different and tends to ask and answer very different questions than the East. In broad strokes, we can say the Latin Church is more reason-oriented, yielding knowledge, where the East is more spirit-oriented, yielding wisdom (but of course, both are in each - I'm talking about what is emphasized more so). The Roman Catholic tradition expresses itself logically, in a legal sense, and is concerned about precision and orderliness in the conveyance of truth, where the Eastern Catholic tradition expresses theology in poetry and song (e.g. St. Ephrem the Syrian - Doctor of the Church) - it may even sometimes see precision, orderliness, and being learned and legal-minded as an impediment, while preferring simplicity, metaphor, the narrative, ambiguous poetry, or maybe no words at all and employs iconography to teach instead. The Roman Catholic theological tradition is scholastic (1000AD - present) and the Eastern Catholic spiritual tradition is Patristic (4th/5th century - 1000AD). My only point is that scholasticism is primarily a Western Church tradition and not so much an Eastern Church so when we say "Thomism = Catholicism", while I think there is definitely truth to that in a sense, it's more accurate perhaps to say Thomism is the Roman patrimony and heritage. It is the backbone of how Rome expresses itself for the benefit of the whole Universal Church (East/West), but it is not necessarily something that captures the whole of the Catholic tradition, I'd argue (which the word 'synonymous' tends to imply). That statement has nothing to do with theologians from the '60s, but rather with the teaching of the Church Fathers and mystical tradition of the monastics who followed in the footsteps of the Desert Fathers. These two expressions make up the whole of Catholicism, and without each other I feel we both suffer some loss. Would that the Orthodox someday feel similarly and we all be one. God bless and Thank you for the great content. Christ is Risen!!
This is very interesting to me and, admittedly a bit of a blind spot in this video. I wish I had time to discuss it at length with someone like you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@@BrianHoldsworth It was for me to until last year when the Lord called me to go Eastern. This is understandable since Eastern Catholics are a relative minority in the Catholic Church. What it means to be 'Catholic' has really been enriched and deepened for me since I've been attending Divine Liturgy in the Ukrainian Catholic Church [Byzantine tradition]. It's a great gift to be a Catholic - that is, to be whole. Thanks!
Outstanding clear summation! And it's obvious which theology is in vogue throughout most of the Church today, from the top on down: from vacillating Bergoglio to sycophant cardinals, celebrity bishops (Barron), to "carnival barker" priests who instruct the faithful on the latest novelty. Hope you unveil how the Church has gone into an "eclipse" since chaotic Vatican II.
The great French philosopher (one can also call him a theologian) Etienne Gilson (1884-1978) had, I believe, the correct interpretation of St Thomas in saying that all of the Summa Theologiae is theology, and that what looks like philosophy is actually a philosophy that has been enlightened, transformed, elevated, and subsumed into theology, like at Cana water was turned to wine, as St Thomas says. See amazon.com/Reason-Thomas-Aquinas-According-Etienne/dp/153979069X
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.82[2/2] เมาท์มอยกับ 3 สาวเพื่อนซี้ ที่พร้อมขยี้พ่อหมีได้ทุกเมื่อ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Wwn7WnylNtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Catholicism's sound balance of faith and reason was very attractive to me when I converted. Especially the anti-scientific and fideistic attitude of some forms of American Evangelicalism stood out to me as a big red flag. If christianity is true, it speaks to the whole of reality: the sciences, the arts, philosophy, society, culture. In other words it's truly universal and therefore also truly 'catholic'.
In that sense, Thomism is THE catholic philosophy par excellence: combining the whole of scripture and tradition under the guidance of natural reason and supernatural revelation in a single synthesis.
Well said.
He used the Fathers and a little bit of Plato. So, of course he continued in the same tradition of Christian neo-platonism. But that's already completely different from "reinterpreting it". It's not as if he just took Plotinus and rearranged his philosophy if that's what you're getting at. He systematized what Pseudo-Dionysius, John of Damascus, Augustine and the Cappadocians said into a single philosophy. And if you think he just collected patristic quotes or didn't have anything to add beyond that, I cordially recommend you to read an introduction to Aquinas' thought.
And it's much more than just "saying the same things" his predecessors said. St Thomas' philosophy is largely Aristotelian, which was also quite novel at his time.
American Evangelicalism has done more to drive people AWAY from Church than any Atheist ever could with their Straw Man tacticts. But the only real difference is that one talks for God's Straw man and the other against it.
@Radagast You're not a musician are you? TIMING is everything!
@John Johnson Is the Bible not the canon of the Catholic Church?
Sounds like a good opportunity for “Pints with Acquinas” eh, Matt and Brian?
Craig Walkins pints with Aquinas is weak man. That guy isn't a Thomist. Being a Thomist is an expression of discipleship to the doctrine of the master, St. Thomas Aquinas. Fradd just isn't that guy. He's too willing to entertain nonsense. Brian should do Taylor Marshall. He's much closer to the real deal of Thomism.
Definitely 👍👍 @Craig Watkins
Vilém Plaček lol not all Catholics but maybe the guy from pints with AQUINAS. Ridiculous. Enjoy the watered down new theology.
Jacob A oh, I agree with you on Dr Marshall! He’s the man! I saw Matt Fradd made a “woop woop” comment here and thought I’d throw that out for the fun of it. I’m a Tradition Latin Mass guy and DTM has helped me on my journey with Thomist theology. 👍🏻
Jacob A yeah, I’m not into the Novus Ordo, Vat II stuff. All TLM for me & Aquinas sets the standard on Catholic theology.
Woop woop!
Could this be a celebration of us putting human tradition on par with Scripture? Was told by my spiritual director before a vocations weekend last fall that there is no difference. Troubled me greatly, and still does. If the Bible is not sufficient for our theology and Christology then it is just a collection of books that contains error. In Christ, Andrew
@@Ezekiel336-16 Are you a Protestant? Because your argument makes you sound as much. No where in this video was St. Thomas put on par with Holy Scripture.
@@aretrograde7745 Not even remotely close to one, but the Lord has placed the Supreme value of Scripture on my heart so I understand why you might think so. And, yes, you are correct, the video did not explicitly or directly put St Thomas on par with Scripture but it did mention the council of Trent placing his summary on "the high alter next to it" before saying it was second only to it. When that reality, presuming Brian is correct, is put together with the rest of what he said about tomism becoming the new foundation for our faith, and what I was told by my spiritual director about there being no difference between Scripture and tradition, it certainly seems that our love affair with tradition is quite problematic. Hopefully my explanation helps you to see where I'm coming from and the dots I'm connecting with this. We need to get back to basics and stay there as faithful Catholics and stop being concerned with being able to convince anyone and everyone about Jesus and the Truth. Some do not believe because they do not want to or have been made blind by our Lord. But that's in Scripture and up to us whether or not to accept and believe (follow). In Christ, Andrew
Andrew I would say don’t be discouraged and it should always be the case that scripture is above even St.Thomas Aquinass works.Yet there have been few works made that could come close to as thorough or as understandable to the trained mind as the Summa Theologica.They started it as the most thorough and best treatise on Catholic thought which all comes from scripture.The Summas strength is the great influence scripture has on the work.
@@danielnuncio693 Thanks brother I appreciate it, because it is highly discouraging to hear anyone even hint at something being on par with Scripture. Too many people don't read what Jesus and the Holy Spirit have in store for them in Scripture because they were told to ask a priest like my parents and grandparents or want to just look things up in the catechism or elsewhere - like the summa. It's lazy faith and it does far less to bring someone truly close to our living God because they are not engaging and wrestling with what He says. Instead they are engaging or wrestling with what someone else says.
We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, while asking for the help of others along the way, we are not supposed to have them work it out for us. That's the job of the Holy Spirit and the word of God who feeds our souls. I don't feed others with me, I feed them with Him. I'm Christ, Andrew
I am so grateful for your wisdom and insight, Brian! Thank you for this channel!
That's high praise Fr. Schmitz. Your ministry and work have been an inspiration to me. Thank you!
@@BrianHoldsworth To be honest, despite enjoying most of your content I thought that this was not your best work. Please let me explain below
I’ve been following you since your channel first began and consider you a kindred spirit who is intellectually rigorous and commonsensical. Bottom line, the choice between a Saint, especially one with as much magisterial backing as St. Thomas, and a modern theologian is an easy one. Yet we should also look to the spirit of that saint to ensure we are in line with him. I was disappointed by this video because it is not even handed like your other work and like St. Thomas himself. That being said, I know you were yourself responding against a one sided view, I just don't want you to fall into the same approach brother! For example, it was the “New” (neo - latin for new) scholastics who branded the 20th century resourcement movement as “New” Theology when in fact those theologians never claimed to be pursuing the new for the sake of new and in fact sought the old (Scripture and Fathers). Ironically the new scholastics gave their own movement the name new (I only add this because there was some uneven rhetoric around the term New). The so called Nouvelle Theology wasn’t so much new as rather centered on a return to the Bible and Fathers as can be evidenced by their works. Again, this is simplified for the sake of brevity. For example, a perusal of the Catechism of Trent will show that scripture and the fathers were used, but just not as extensively (especially in regard to the Eastern lung of the Church) as you might see in the new, nouvelle theology inspired Catechism of today.
Now was there bad that came from the movement and indeed some bad novelty? Yes. Was there bad that came from Neo-Scholasticism, especially in being too closed off to modern man? Yes. In truth many of the Nouvelle Theologians (not the radical ones) were trying to continue the approach of St. Thomas in terms of meditating on the sources of the faith and then bringing it into a language for the people of their time. Many of the Nouvelle Theologians were trying to do the difficult work of engaging the culture to bring out the good in it. This is unquestionably the approach of St. Thomas but not always of neo-Thomists. The Summa would only be a hundred pages long if it were not for the fact that so much time is spent taking the good from others and then trying to show where bad ideas were right and where they went wrong. When you read the Summa 90% of the time, you’re actually reading wrong opinions and then a long response that brings out the best in them. This is the nuanced approach we need today. St. Thomas knew that the evil he removed from the bad ideas was a metaphysical “nothing” that was corrupting the good that it was parasitic on. He did the hard work of a surgeon in removing the evil lifeless “nothings” in order to save the good for he loved goodness, truth and existence itself so very much. Many today, seem to want the simple answer of condemning entire thought systems without the hard work of figuring out what is good. They do not dig for the great pearl of truth like holy St. Thomas. Everything is clear in the shallows, and it is not there that St. Thomas spent his days, thanks be to God that he waded into the depths and found truth wherever he could. God bless St. Thomas. If the good theologians including JPII and Pope Emeritus Benedict have not done it perfectly like the genius that is St. Thomas, at least they have tried to work with that wholly Catholic spirit of his which sought to save truth everywhere.
Not to get too sidetracked but I think the use of the magisterium in the video also lacks evenhandedness, at least in how it was approached rhetorically. On one hand, we have the pure encyclical (which I like!) of Pope Leo 13th (hopefully St. soon!) an example of the exercise of the ordinary magisterium and then when the Second Vatican Council is mentioned (an example of the extraordinary magisterium requiring greater submission) all the talk of it endorsing the nouvelle theology is couched in terms that they “won the day”, “sneaked in” and changed everything for the worse i.e only the human element of the council was highlighted and at that it was an overly simplistic and overly critical description of what really happened. Additionally, the language around the magisterium censoring the “new” theologians is all implied as being completely correct and prudent, but when the same magisterium namely, St. Pope John 23rd, lifted those condemnations it is all of a sudden, implied to be a bad or sketchy magisterial decision. As mentioned at the beginning, the church censored many saints like St. Thomas, St. Francis, St. John of the Cross and St. Ignatius of Loyola, we have to make a prudential judgement about the correctness of those condemnations and often the hindsight of centuries helps. Not to belabor it too much but simply put, one cannot have it both ways when it comes to magisterium. There is obviously a lot more that can be said, but all I want to focus on is the fact that this kind of approach ultimately ends in turning oneself into their own magisterium which is the essence of the evil of both Modernism and Protestantism in the first place. Against the Protestants and Modernists we admit that there is a human element at work in the Church, even in the ecumenical councils. Read St. Gregory Nazianzus on the treachery and politics behind the ecumenical council of Constantinople to get a clear idea that the human is at work in even the ecumenical councils but we also know that the Spirit is present with wings outstretched as well.
Because we live in a time where to be moderate simply means you’re hated by both sides, I will add that I love reading Thomas, the Fathers, the Bible (indisputably the best/most important resource on this list) and the most recent works of the Popes (JPII and Benedict) Lagrange and De Lubac. JPII would seem to be an answer to the recent “Either Ors” highlighted in Catholic Blogosphere presentations of Neo Thomism and Nouvelle Theology. JpII, this recently canonized Saint, was at once a Thomist (trained by Lagrange himself) but also heavily influenced and a key propagator of the nouvelle theology along with Pope Emeritus Benedict. Ironically, the video only indicated that St. JPII was a Thomist but neglected to show that he was also a Nouvelle theologian as well (mainly because the video had already labelled Nouvelle Theology as basically heretical/sketchy so it’d be bad rhetorically to immediately admit that a canonized saint and pope was all about it).
I come to a close with the quote from the Dominican Thomist Sertillanges, (who himself said to focus foremost, though not only, on the Summa and the Catechism of Trent) “An essential condition for profiting by our reading is to tend always to reconcile our authors instead of setting one against another…it is futile (and he implies much easier) to linger endlessly over differences; the fruitful research is to look for points of contact” The Intellectual Life pg 164. That is the approach of both Catholicism and St. Thomas Finally, to be more of a moderate in today’s atmosphere I feel like the psalmist who said “I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war” (Ps 120:7). The beautiful “both and” of Catholicism seems to be narrowing into an “either or.” I didn’t leave Protestantism just to end up getting that type of thinking all over again. Forgive me for anything I wrote in error, for the many English errors and for the error of being longwinded, God bless the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. St. Thomas pray for us. St. JPII pray for us. St. Michael the Archangel pray for us
Hi father Mike Schmitz
Nobody has heard of these new wave theologists, but every Catholic has heard of St Thomas Aquinas.
Rahner, Kung and Congar were and remain despicable heretics. They were the masterminds behind the Robber's council known as Vatican II . The Vatican II Church that currently hails from Rome today is undoubtedly the Whore of Babylon prophesied in scripture. Get out of Her.
@Jean Belmondo
The Chair of Peter is currently Vacant.
Regardless of its current state, you can't be a catholic with out belonging to the catholic church. It is the mystical body of Christ, and it will always be. It shouldn't be a surprise that the church falls on dark times, after all its members are human and susceptible to error and sin; and we have also been warned by the Lord himself and numerous saints that there will be false Shepards. It isn't the first time that the members of the church have been in error. But the church itself as the mystical body of christ will never be in error. Christ will always triumph. The church won't lose us, it is us who will lose the church. As catholics it is important now more than ever that we remain in the church, that we don't let the corruption of the times sway us away from the body of Christ. Even if there are those amongst the clergy, even in high positions, that are spreading heresies, we musnt be schismatic, or disrespectful towards the authority of the church. Christ appointed them for a reason. We can only do our best to follow the gospel and live a virtues life, and thing will get better. The church will remain, greater in glory than ever before. We just have to hold the faith as best as we can.
Yep.
@Jean Belmondo No. That's sedevacantism. The Catholic church has suffered bad popes before; a true Catholic, a person truly devoted to Jesus Christ, does not leave His church. We suffer through it, as it is His Will to send bad priests, bishops and popes for for testing, punishment and whatever else may be in His Holy Will for His people.
I was raised by Franciscans, yet even I know that anyone who considers himself Catholic MUST read Aquinas. He is often very legalistic and I don’t always agree with his assertions but he is a MUST READ for Catholics.
Malik Aquinas isn’t always right. But he usually is, and his method of synthesising Aristotle with scripture and Patristics is the definitive way of doing Catholic theology.
Catholics who wish to disregard Aquinas altogether are almost always modernists.
Yes, Thomas Aquinas was not God not to err. But, his method, what he did, how he approached the problems, that still stands, it's has lasting value.
@@albertito77 And it is often the case that were he is wrong it is for a good reason. His view on the Immaculate conception is a good instance.
@@albertito77 By modernists you been females???? So if females are lesser beings you love Thomas???
@@Sue-i3g no. As I said, St Thomas is not correct about everything but his theological framework and approach is absolutely essential for any serious or rigorus theological study
Thank you! As a new Catholic I have been struggling with the reconciliation of faith and reason and this helped a lot.
Franciscan Spirituality sees everything in creation -- people, movements, places, the environment, and the cosmos itself -- can reveal The Almighty. A sacrament is an exterior sign of an interior reality. It is hidden so normally we cannot see it. But under this principle, the division between sacred and secular is erased: Everything is sacred, because all comes from the Lord. I suppose in some sense sacramentality of Tolkien could be seen as a reflection of Einstein’s panentheism.
“Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty." -- Albert Einstein
"The peril is that human intellect is free to destroy itself." - G.K. Chesterton
Even if Jesus appeared to me I would not, COULD not bow to him. It would be unconscionable to praise a being who would let people wind up in Hell. I was catholic until age twenty-four. I was the guy at confirmation class who had to keep quiet and let others answer questions because I already knew so much. I see Christianity as a bleak, depressing worldview, and The Bible (Which I have read from cover to cover) as full of truly absurd stories. What is your response to that, Luc? In the four years since converting to atheism I have been much happier. Any comments,
Michael Flores My take on it is that He let's us choose Him, or choose away from Him, as we please. Hell is simply a place where God is not there, where human beings can choose to go. As for the idea that He let's people go there, therefore He's evil, I feel like if I was forced out of my own will to be with Him forever, not being able to choose Him by my own will, being in communion with Him wouldn't really be the same, and I think my own feelings on the matter would be different by a long shot. This notion is reflected by the idea of marriage. For it to actually be valid, there has to be consent for both people, and in the same way, if I was coerced into marrying someone, even if it was God, it wouldn't be a relationship. And if heaven is been in communion with God for an eternity, and I by my own will did not choose that, it still wouldn't be valid, therefore heaven itself, wouldn't bare any fruit and I wouldn't receive the graces that God offers me in the first place, because I didn't want it in the first place. He's not a mythological creature who's going to shove things down my throat when He sees fit, He reveals Himself and allows us to choose for ourselves what we want. Sure, God loves and cares for everyone, but I think a lot of people miss the point that it's supposed to be a Relationship. If you just expose yourself to what He has revealed to you with a presupposition against Him, well ofc you're not going to find anything at all, and you're just wasting your own time. Those who never wanted to take part in the faith in the first place, those who let the words of His teachings bounce off of them like a brick wall, not truly seeking, will easily find it freeing that they leave the Lord, who is the embodiment of all things good, because He goodness, and those who ACTUALLY seek Him without kidding themselves will find the answers that they please. In fact, I think that the exact opposite would be depressing, just being forced into a marriage and all, rejecting any of His offers but being forced to anyway. But at least, now I get to choose to love and serve Him.If He came down from heaven again, and went in front of you, and revealed all the answers in the world and proved to you that He was God, it would contradict the very basis of who He is, because there would require no effort of faith on your part. So I guess if He did do that, you probably wouldn't bow, but for different reasons maybe. God bless you.
"There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped."
@@michaelflores9220 Maybe you don't realize, but your thinking is completely distorted and ambiguous. On the one hand you condemn Christ for allegedly sending people to Hell. On the other hand you declare that Christ bringing salvation from Hell leads to a "bleak, depressing worldview". Thus you profess one thing and its contrary. My explanation is you've embraced too much of s8n's truths. They poison you, this is what s8n does, he lures, he poisons, he kills (spiritually). But you're in good company, if I be allowed a little sarcasm, the great Martin Luther wrote similar things and he too had read the Bible (too much) and ended up depressed and bound for Hell (saying so himself). Luther too called Jesus names because Luther couldn't practice his own faith so instead of admitting that and looking for practical solutions, he found nothing better than messing up the faith. Unlike ML though, you're still alive: check your own understanding before criticizing God and things will start to appear less bleak and less depressing. God bless you.
@@toninobelimussi296 The Bible says people go to Hell despite salvations o yeah no contradiction there.
I can distinctly remember dropping out of a medieval philosophy class as a masters student because I had looked over the syllabus on the first day and saw that Ockham was on it, but Aquinas was not. I’ve never regretted that decision.
Ya, that's a red flag.
This was an enjoyable video. However, as a Catholic priest, I feel like I should offer an explanatory note. It is certainly the case that Neo-Scholasticism fell by the way side during the latter half of 20th century, and the unintended consequence that resulted from this transition was that some threw the baby out with the bath water (i.e., disregarding St Thomas). No one, however, ever said that St Thomas was irrelevant. In fact, St Thomas is still cited in magisterial texts. The core problem for the prominent theologians that influenced the Second Vatican Council was not St Thomas himself, but how the Neo-Scholastics were utilizing his theology for ends that they held were contrary to his original intent. It became necessary, therefore, for the Church to remind herself that there are other voices in the Tradition which can speak in a complimentary way. As such, when Pope Leo XIII asserted that the theology of St Thomas is definitive, we should not draw from this that we are bound to view St Thomas as synonymous with Catholicism in an exclusive manner. What Leo XIII said of Thomas is equally true in an unofficial sense - that is to say, in the way things are received by the Church but never consciously defined - of the other prominent medieval doctors (i.e., Anselm, Bonaventure, Theresa of Avila, etc). In sum, what the well-grounded theologians of the 20th century desired was a holistic approach to the Tradition of the Church. It was not intended to "disenfranchise" St Thomas or disregard his theology. This is to say nothing of the fact that St Thomas is relative, contingent and beholden to the earlier layers of the Tradition which he drew upon, namely the fathers. If St Thomas was watching this conversation, he would be telling us to use his Summa as a synthesis of, and a supplement to, patristic theology, because those are the real giants whom he stood upon.
wgenitorj, you identify yourself as a Catholic priest. First let me say thank you for your contribution here. I respectfully ask you a question to correct my thinking of 20th century theologians. I have come to the conclusion that some theologians did think St Thomas was irrelevant, even some today. However, not being able to out-think Thomas they tried to reconcile his thought with modernist thought. Most of us Catholics today, not being theologians or in many cases Luke warm catholics, cannot recognize the contradiction that poses. Am I off the mark here? Again, thank you for your contribution here and God Bless you, Neto
I would say that maybe not on the level of magisterial documents or within church teaching but it is a more and more common thought that the church no longer holds Aquinas or Scholasticism as important. It’s an extreme view but it doesn’t seem to be from jut ignorant individuals, but from scholars as well.
The information given here is valuable, especially in regard to Pope John Paul Ii
He was a genius but the more remarkable thing is that Aquinas had an encounter with JC and the Lord showed him Heaven in a gracious gesture because Thomas had write so wonderful things about Him. St Thomas Aquinas after that encounter didn't write one mire word, when people asked him why, he explained nothing I have wrote is close enough what the spiritual world and God is about, there are not words to describe the Divinity. I mentioned that because I think that agree with what we often read in the scripture, that for God the more important thing is the more simple, He wants us to have a relationship with Him, and try to imitate Him, all the rest is an add on, it is useful and good but if we don't have a real connection with the Creator no books or knowledge would make up for it. I'm an intellectual myself but I understood that in an inspiration during my time as an adorer.
I just can’t believe the wonderful teachings of Jesus require all this ultra complex verbose philosophy language.
@@davidtrindle6473They don't require them. The simplest beggar can enter heaven. Jesus' teachings are clear and easy to know. But if you want to truly understand them from a natural law viewpoint you need to educate yourself. That's the price of knowledge, effort. This "verbose" language exists for a reason.
Pretty soon after I was Baptized I told one of my priests that things were often so confusing and unclear that I had decided that I just wasn’t interested in anything that was in conflict with Aquinas (with the exception of the Immaculate Conception and the like of course). He seemed a little bothered by my statement. I didn’t quite realize at the time that I was defining my position in this divide in the Church.
A very similar thing happened to me. I came into the Church thinking all priests were a bunch of Thomists. But when I started talking about how I loved St. Thomas my priest seemed concerned and a bit irritated. Little did I know this problem is very widespread.
0
St Thomas is difficult to understand, and most priests don’t bother to read and therefore they develop a certain resentment and start disparaging St Thomas. It’s their problem, not St Thomas’.
The Catholic Church still does not have a clear answer for the Immaculate Conception question raised by the good saint Aquinas - at best they propose to compare her soul to the one that did not touch the quick sand of original sin (Duns Scotus), which is not satisfactory because even this explanation suggests that her soul was falling just like ours except it did not touch or go in to the quick sand of original sin. The Blessed Virgin herself says God is her Savior.
I do believe in the Immaculate Conception just like St Thomas Aquinas presents it in the Summa Part 3 Q. 27
Anyways, if the Catholic church was really serious then they would have updated the Credo to include the Immaculate Conception dogma, just like the old faithful did. The modern catholic church has become sloppy, it had 2 councils to update the Credo and also the Popes would have had a disclaimer stating their disagreement with St Aquinas into the Summa before making it mandatory in seminaries.
The Church needs to eat its own medicine before asking the faithful to eat the same.
Majority of the faithful think Immaculate Conception means the conception of Jesus Christ and yet the Church has made it a dogma. If the Church really serious they would have updated the Credo and not just put some obligatory feast day knowing well that most faithful don't know whose conception they are actually referring to.
This is so funny, my highschool had 4 houses which are Lavalla, Champagnat, Xavier and Aquinas but in 1969 the Marist brothers whom ran the school removed Aquinas. Just this year the new Headmaster reinstated Aqiunas
That’s weird, my Marist school teaches about Aquinas without a problem
@@bernardoblanchetramirez6032 the Church in New Zealand made a curriculum deal in the 90's with their Anglican counterparts which greatly affected authentic Catholic teaching in Schools. Our religious studies Curriculum is essentially a post modernist Neo - Ecumenism.
@Don Bailey it’s not like the school flat outs decides which topics to censor and which to teach. We were taught Aquinas in my Logics class, not in some theology class (we didn’t had those)
@Don Bailey uhm, I’m not from the US, but cool... I guess
Luther burned the Summa Theologica! As an aspiring Catholic I find this highly offensive.
This tells you all you need to know about the 'reformers' of the faith once delivered and never to be reformed.
@Bestpossible World that's a first
Interestingly, I understand that in the end of his life st. Thomas Aquinas had a heavenly vision so profound that he himself wanted to burn it, as insufficient in describing the greatness of God!
Luther was a mystery school initiate...he was going off into the weeds.
Javier von Sydow I’ve heard something similar. He considered everything he had written as straw. Ad majorem Dei Gloriam!
If someone said to me "Give me Küng, give me Rahner" in response to me quoting Aquinas, I think I would laugh out loud. You might as well say "Give me Luther, give me Calvin"
You might as well say give me Descartes, give me Kant. Or, give me a Baptist healing worship instead of the Holy Mass
@Vilém Plaček most important of St .Thomas is realism. He forces our minds to contemplate the deposit of faith as a given and the natural world as a given and perfectly good deposit. Rahner, influenced by Hegel, believes he can improve the world towards a ever brighter future. A bit like evolution theorists believe that everything is developing towards something more perfect.
@Murrax9: Great post!
Who do you think said this? Sounds like a particular Catholic celebrity to me.
Or just tell them "If you want Kung and Rahner, go to a cattle ranch and bring a big shovel."
St. Thomas Aquinus converted an abortionist by visiting him in successive nightly dreams. “These children are the ones you killed with your abortions,” said St. Thomas, and Stojan awoke in shock and fear. He decided he would refuse to participate in any more abortions. There are so many stories about the saints, but this one is especially powerful. Faith or Reason? If Truth is the goal, it doesn't matter. God is always speaking to us.
If only more atheists and agnostics read Sumna Theologica they wouldn't have such perturbed and ignorant views on Christianity and the Existence of God and theology. Aquinas is a figure we should All aspire to be, he was wise, charitable, holy and always focused on manifesting the Glory of God through work and writing.
Chris Goomba protestant stuff was a double hit because atheists think Christians are only like them. And Protestants took some original Catholic Christians away from true Christianity.
Wonderful, Brian. I will share this video with my two teenage daughters this weekend, and we will discuss at length. Your work here is much appreciated.
Thankfully, I've never heard someone say "when in doubt, faith it out", but it wouldn't surprise me if some of my "friends" on Facebook have posted a "meme" of it.
Immidiatly clicked on the video when I saw the name St Thomas Aquinas. Great video!! Like always
I just ordered some of Aquinas's writings.
@Croatian and Hungarian Mofo that was rather rude.
I love how concise yet effective your videos are. You got my sub.
Well observed. Aquinas is the man of reality. His knowledge comes from contemplation on the "I am" ie. "being" , in person. All who stray from this path end up in ideology
A question? Did all the doctors and saints of the Church before Aquinas end up in ideology? True, Aquinas did build on them and we should build on Aquinas...but Thomas himself said that all he wrote was a straw meaning, what he said (and he said a lot) is nothing compared to greatness if the Lord...
What do you mean by "end up in ideology"? Would "fail to nurture individual integrity or neglect development of the ability to make moral distinctions and you will fall for some groupthink and rationalize war crimes" be approximate? It bothers me that partisan political commitments so often infect the minds of people who want to be good Catholics.
@@willwalsh3436 I agree
@@willwalsh3436 ideology is a world view that is rooted in passions rather than humility and reality. In order to see the world as it is, one has to go very deep and true into the self first. A man who is proud will devise a Utopia which will ensure that he is never less than anybody else. This is the root of the equality mania
@@stephenson19861 straw before God , but food for the sheep.
I studied at Brooklyn Prep and Fairfield University and found in my years with the Jesuits all the answers I need to live a good life. There is balance with the Jesuits. They love God but they also love life, and with Jesuits, you realize how unified all that exists is created by God, not divided as so many want us to believe. I felt that studying with Jesuits who drank at the fountain of Thomas Aquinas was a spectrum into God whom I love. Teilhard de Chardin discovered from rocks to Jesus Christ the journey from life on earth to eternity with God. He even forced our Church to discover the unity of life on earth with life in God's eternity because as a paleontologist Chardin insisted that spirit and flesh are one and therefore to achieve the highest Spirit we need to fulfill life in the flesh. They are one. The Church deliberated excommunicating Chardin until scientists discovered the same things. Chardin discovered consciousness that permeates even rocks and though he never made this comment Chardin caused me to suspect that God's breath permeates His creation. So we should breathe heavily all that comes into our consciousness from that breath, soak up His wisdom, then investigate our experience from the source of our reasoning. This combination has been my long-loved gift from God. Thomas Aquinas might even have been the source of Shakespeare's scope of life from good to evil for in both of their cases, they fulfilled their opus brilliantly because the glass half full is always half empty. They knew this. So do I. cf. my youtube: The Art of Men Acting.
Does the Bible also say that the spirit and the flesh are one? Did Our Lord also say that? Or what am I missing?
Thank you Brian for providing clarity on what I've found to often be a confusing topic (Scholasticism & Vatican II, etc.) God gave you a great way with words, love your videos!
Bro! This was so dope and accessible! As someone in seminary, I found this immensely informative! Thank you! You’ve got a follower!
Given all this we ought to pray for unity in the Church! It's really unfortunate that those who tend to be more traditional (which I would include myself in) are at odds with those who are more "progressive" in the Church. Ideally we wouldn't need these distinctions.
Falsehoods and heresy bring about division, therefore, there can only be unity in truth.
@@FiteTheGoodFight. God creates all life and makes no mistakes whether Muslim or Hindu or Mormon or gay or straight all will be in heaven! The good news!
@@randycouch2769 something tells me you aren't a Catholic...
@Turtle . God knows all! God will give a Muslim family 15 kids to raise in their faith! All will be in heaven! See u there!
“It is an offense against reason to seek all pleasure in the physical order.”
St Thomas A.
I know this is an old comment but I'm virtually certain St. Thomas didn't say or write this. If you have a citation I'd be happy to translate it from the Latin
So impressed with this man. I've been thinking for some time that the Church may have taken a wrong turn at the Second Vatican Council. I sure don't have his kind of brain power let alone the intellect of a world class theologian but I know when something is wrong and things sure are not right in the Church today.
The church started to take wrong turns around the year 800. Then they changed the creed, among other things.
@Mike Gardner seek out the SSPX for the true Catholic faith untainted by the Vatican II errors. St. Pope Pius X called Modernism “the synthesis of all heresies.” Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes #12 states “all things on earth should be directed towards MAN as the center and summit.” This is an offense to God. Hope this helps and God bless
Mike, where do you put the Holy Spirit's guidance of and in the Church today? -- this in reference that 'YOU, for some time' thought the Church took the wrong turn at the VII's convocation of its pastors.
Well, fhere were times when there were three popes and when to be a pope you had to bzy that position. Compared to that, what we have today seems rather ok
And like @Henry Law wrote, if we take it like that, and if Vatican II was wrong than we have to return way, way back before Trent - to the eight Ecumenical Councils.
Vat II is the greatest disaster to befall the Church
Brian Holdsworth, I generally agree with what you are saying, but I tend to think of Catholicism as three major streams (Latin, Greek, & Syriac) with Thomas Aquinas anchoring the Latin Tradition. Aquinas=Catholicism is like saying the Latin Tradition alone= Catholicism. The problem with dogmatizing everything Aquinas says is that it pushes aside other legitimate traditions and orthodox, theological systems within Catholicism, which in turn makes it less Catholic. I think someone like Joseph Ratzinger would agree that Thomas does not have to be the default position for all theological debates which is why he can say that limbo and unbaptized infants in hell was never taught as dogma. If Catholicism is Aquinas, that means we can never disagree with him which would make him infallible. Though I deeply appreciate Aquinas, I would find that problematic. (BTW, you have a great ministry and keep up the good work! This would be a great conversation with Matt Fradd since he is a lover of Aquinas and attends an Eastern Catholic parish.)
Totally agree
The problem is Matt Fradd doesn’t attend a Byzantine Catholic Church because he believes Eastern theology. He’s a Latin who attends a Byzantine Church because he likes the liturgy.
"...like this gadfly that just won't go away..."
The truth has a tendency to do that.
The Summa is one of the best books I have laid my eyes on. It's so satisfying for me.
I've learned a little about Catholicism through reading about saints, and their own works in some cases. ... so happy that you appreciate that.....amazing man st Thomas. Nothing I can add to his praises by so many great men over centuries, ... hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah
Really so the hatred of women turns you on.
I'm a Protestant and that isn't going to change, but i will say that I was turned off by some churches' emphasis on emotionalism. I do like the middle ground between faith and reason, which is why St. Thomas Aquinas appeals to me. Btw, modernism sounds similar to post-modernism, except (if I understand your explanation) modernists treat theology and philosophy in an à la carte fashion, where post-modernists deconstruct everything, recognizing no objective truth in any form whatever. As a Protestant, I absolutely do appreciate the Catholic church in the sense that they will not compromise on hot button social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, etc. There can be no compromise - no one foot in Egypt and another in Canaan.
Would you consider making a video specifically on Fides and Ratio and its effects on the Church? It'd be cool to see you develop this video into a Part 2!
This is one of the best videos I've heard on the subject. Thank you for the video
Thank you Brian:
This video came to me at the right moment, I really do not have time to discuss in which way this video helped me, but from the bottom of my heart I can only say THANK YOU. God bless you my friend.
VIVA CRISTO REY!!!!
👍Greetings from Prague, Czech republic!
Amazing information, Brian. Thanks I always had wondered what the relevance of St. Thomas' work was!
You made me appreciate St. Thomas Aquinas even more. 😁
As much as I am most close to Thomism myself, I do think we should give credit to other scholastic thinkers like Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, Robert Grosseteste, Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, Petrus Aureolus, Giles of Rome or Henry of Ghent. 👍
God bless You! ✝️
What an excellent presentation and summary of the life of Thomism in the history of the Church! I am so pleasantly surprised by a young American man so clearly articulating these important facts of Church history and bringing again together faith and reason to the fore of the American Christian dialogue. Your account actually should help those that are lost on the culture wars and eager to develop their understanding of their faith and transcendental truths. I was formed in this school at the Pontificial University were I studied Law in Argentina but had never heard these exciting facts presented and discussed in such a succinct and precise way here in America. Now I see that something big is brewing in American Catholicism for the benefit of the universal Church. For myself I'll say that there's nothing like delving into the study of Philosophy and Logic and reading about the history of the Church, obviously after having read at least the Gospels (following st. Jerome's dictum!) and picking a science as a hobby (in my case, Astronomy and Cosmology, both of which demand some knowledge of Physics). With these areas of knowledge familiarized, taking on the encyclical Fides et Ratio brings it all together. St. John Paul II was very versed in Philosophy. Thank you!
Incidentally, and in line with what our priest has mentioned in a comment below, every Catholic thinker that enriches the Church's history shows also the true integral reality of our faith and the vastness of our God, even in their intellectual tensions, by bringing in their individual points of view and charisms. I say this because as much as we are thankful to Thomas Aquinas for having integrated Aristotle's work with our faith, his thorough system of analysis of reality coexists with that of other great thinkers with whom he actually dissented, such as st. Anselm (re the ontological argument). And as it is, our faith is thus beautifully supplemented for example by having BOTH his proof via the 5 ways and Anselm's ontological argument!
Excellent content Brian, and very clearly expounded. You have a gift of communication. Right on the money! You are doing a great service. God bless you - and your family.
My head just exploded. You are so incredibly smart. I have to watch this again just to grab the handle again. I would like to learn Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin and read the Summa Theologica by Aquinas. You say it’s a okay to rest my hat there. I’m trusting you more and more every time I watch. You moved my life with such an earthquake of knowledge to share. Thanks for holding up a light for me in this tunnel. You are above and yet tangible. Thank God for those like you whom embrace wisdom and truth. -Dave
I am Jewish with mostly Catholic relatives and I can't tell you how well done this lecture is. I could not understand before how St Thomas Aquinas fit into church history and more impotant beliefs.. Now even as I hear Jews comment on any subject it occurs to me I have been for years seeking the St Thomas Aquinas of the Jews to rise up which I feel we many times lack in these debates . Somebody to tell us how we integrate logic with a bible verse,.
What about Maimonides and his Guide for The Perplexed? I'm an atheist and I find Maimonides's doctrines are flawed, but I would think that he is the Jewish equivalent of Aquinas rather than of Aristotle. Aristotle definitely didn't address/embrace theology and religion as intensely as Aquinas and Maimonides did.
Love your videos Brian - you are a poet / artisan at these videos. Please continue your great 👍🏻 work!
Many of the Protestant Reformers were actually Scholastics and held Thomas Aquinas in high-esteem, particularly Peter Vermigli and later 17th century Reformed theologians such as Franciscus Junius and Francis Turretin.
I think your assessment of the Nouvelle Theologie is too one sided and promotes a somewhat false dichotomy. Both Nouvelle Theologie and the neo-scholasticism of Garrigou-Lagrange came as a result of Leo XIII's statement about Thomism. NS was more focused in the substance of St Thomas, while NT was more about applying St Thomas' method to modern times, and both are valid approaches. For St Thomas' day, what he was doing in applying Aristotle to Christian thought was a novel idea, and stood in contrast to traditional Platonism of the centuries before him. It is also worth noting that figures such as Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, de Lubac, and Hans Urs von Balthasar were all also a part of this Nouvelle Theologie and produced great fruits from it (I'm not saying all NT theologians are great or orthodox, but you can find unorthodox theologians in all schools), and popes such as Paul VI and JPII promoted their ideas and positions because they found them to be true and in line with the Faith
Balthasar was basically a universalist; thinking that all are saved, which is heresy. And I have only heard bad things from de Lubac. There has been no good fruit in comparison to the overwhelming abundance of bad from the Second Vatican Council and "the spirit of the council."
The major fruits of it are the fact that they emphasised a return to the original sources of Christianity, primarily Scripture and the early Church Fathers, and they reminded us that Scripture is the source and soul of all theology (cf Dei Verbum, Verbum Domini). Aquinas himself was more a Scripture scholar than an Aristotelian one, since he mainly taught Scripture at the universities, rather than Aristotle, or his own theology. Unlike the neo-scholastics, the NT theologians sought a return to the early sources, and it is thanks in part to their efforts that we have this veneration in our day and age for the early Church Fathers and the Scriptures
@Josaphat Martin revival of patristics in catholic and read the actual sources from the fathers and also revival of thomism
@@BuggyrcobraAya Yeah, a return to the sources by lying about the sources and then smuggling in modernism. People have caught on to the absolute nonsense that is and was the Nouvelle Theologie. The new liturgy failed, the new theology failed, it's time to go back to real Catholicism and leave the heretics by the wayside.
You are correct buggy. Many here would benefit watching what Bishop Barron has said on these topics.
That was phenomenal. Thank you for your service
Well explained, thank you. Respects from Argentina.
I've been a Catholic all my life and have always been interesed in Aquinas' work. The thing I like most about him is that he is the philosopher of the "sober middle ground" and of common sense.
Thank you for dropping the music
This is a good explanation of the importance of Thomistic theology. Speaking as a Byzantine Rite Catholic, though, I can't help mentally inserting 'Roman' before every use of the term 'Catholic' in this video. The emphases in the Eastern Catholic churches are different, and more reference is made directly to the early Church Fathers and pre-schism theologians. And, of course, this applies also to our engagement with modern theologians, which means we tend to focus on theologians working within our own tradition and not on e,g, thinkers like Rahner or Kuhne who are operating in a space defined by the Roman Catholic confrontation with protestantism.
Kung? Rahner? How about no. In fact, let us say no to all types modernism in whatever flavor it comes. The teachings of those men are dangerous.
There's a range of different levels of traditionalism. One guy somewhere drew a fine chart. Let's see: 1) Liberal Novus Ordo, 2) Conservative Novus Ordo, 3) Liberal Indult, 4) Conservative Indult, 5) Ecclesia Dei a.k.a. FSSP/ICRSS, 6) Liberal SSPX, 7) Conservative SSPX, 8) Bp. Williamson's SSPX Resistance, 9) Fr. Pfeiffer's SSPX Resistance, 10) Opinionist Sedevacantism of SSPV, 11) Sedeprivationism of RCI and IMBC, 12) total Sedevacantism of SGG and CMRI, 13) home aloners and 14) Conclavists. The key here is that most of these levels or steps are mixtures of something or oppositions to something. And many modernists pose as traditionalists by mixing Novus Ordo conservatism with a traditional name or concept or two. Then there are generally what one could call smells and bells traditionalists who believe all the modern stuff but appreciate the cultural and artistic value of say TLM or St. Thomas or any other major saint or doctor. "We the people are the Church and all this is our heritage." They never use their brains to get the full idea at once, but instead sample bits and pieces from here and there and pontificate about how important and serious it all is.
Rahner's most consistent resource in all the texts I've read by him is St. Thomas... There is no departure from Thomism. There is a radicalization and accentuation with regard to modern categories, using different languages. But anyone who reads without fear will understand.
The Church can no longer simply assume cultural-sociological inheritance of cultic faith. So many feel so threatened in their cultural identity as Catholics that they want the Church to turn into an irrelevant sect with less and less members. It's going to fail, even when those members feel cozy in their judgment that they're the only ones saved.
Sad, such emptiness of heart, such blindness to the Spirit. I pray for your souls.
Thank you for broadcasting such an important overview of the history of thought within the Church. I certainly found it useful.
Reason informs faith and faith informs reason and allows us to question and by questioning deepen our faith. "For those with faith, no proof is necessary, for those without, no proof is possible.". St Thomas Aquinas
As far as I know the Orthodox have been less influenced by Aquinas & even Augustine. The Orthodox perspective is something I’m eager to understand.
Search "Eastern Catholic Spirituality" on TH-cam and you'll have the beginning of your answers.
I’m a great fan of Aquinas - what a breathtaking mind. I also believe that his contribution to the understanding of the Catholic faith is very hard to measure given just how considerable it is. I’m currently reading the “Summa Contra Gentiles” and it contains an extraordinary apologetic blueprint that is still deeply relevant. However, there are inevitably parts of it that reflect the specific culture to which Aquinas addresses himself - and he can make assumptions about the nature of rationality and what we might now call the “common sense” of his time that inevitably no longer pertain. So, I give two and three quarter cheers for Aquinas. Yes, rehabilitate Aquinas - but we must recognise that we must modulate our apologetic to our current circumstances without compromising the non-negotiable framework of the faith.
How did you like the summa contra gentiles? I like the way he starts the book. I shared it with a friend at work one time and asked what he thought. He said that st. Thomas was setting up the boundaries
Or the rules of engagement. I thought that was interesting.
Good overview. All Catholics should listen to this. Hey, Protestants, too.
Very insightful. Thank you for teaching
I am a natural law theorist and really appreciate your channel
A clear and interesting presentation to me, a Catholic on cruise control, not particularly knowledgeable. Thank you! I have just listened to "Lessons in Hope" by George Weigel, about St. John Paul II, and I'm so inspired! I feel Grace working through me. BTW - the book was very hard to put down. It's available on www.audible.com if anyone's interested. Great fun yet very deep.
You have a gift for clarity🙏🏼
La Grange will emerge as one of the most significant giants of twentieth century Catholicism.
Thank you for this
Great video, this is info Catholics need to know.
Wonderful. Thank you. Do you know they have put a line through your bell 🔔 in TH-cam, so I can't hit it but I will make sure to search you. Excellent work. Thank you my friend.
Saint Thomas Aquinas enabled me to see God in the immediate world we live in at the very ground of all being and the "Final Cause" that is at the core and which is not "luv", but LOVE. The most desirable thing. Perfect Being. The church gives us Christ who is Truth and Purpose. What these words really mean. Excellent video as usual Brian. Many thanks.
Brilliant thanks Brian. So clear and easy to understand.
Thank you for this excellent summation of St. Thomas's importance. Would like to see you drill down a bit more with regards to Neo-Scholastic vs Communio vs Concilium. God bless!
This was very helpful indeed! The harmony between faith and reason is critical to becoming a mature Christian. As a Protestant, I think there is an assumption with many pastors that faith and reason go hand and hand, but not always. Some pastors simply teach from the Bible and it never crosses their mind that there are members in the congregation whose brain thinks rationally and have questions which are not being addressed. Bishop Barron is right when he says the church has dumbed down the teaching, and it is the number 1 reason young people leave the church. We all need a crash course on Thomism (both Protestant and Catholic) and this video is a great start!
Excellent,very educational...2000 years and counting..There is truly only one church.
God Bless Brother! Your channel helped me come home!
Great video. I took classes at the seminary where I live and it was all nouvelle theologie.
St Thomas pray for you
Thanks for the content. Thoroughly enjoy all of your work. I find you to always give a fair view of all sides of a discussion.
As a Protestant Thomas Aquinas,and St.Augustine are two known names of Catholics that Protestants read their works.
I enjoyed watching your video, Brian. I agree with everything you said and did not learn anything new; however, I was impressed by how succinctly you presented the material. Thank you!
Thank you! ❤
You speak at the speed of a Saint Robin Williams. You say so much and network our minds through many interconnected thoughts at the same time. I am a Thomas. I study Ethics and Moral Character Development and Reasoning in my late life PhD. I want ethics to be infused into the Internet like a vaccine. Thank you for bringing me Thomas and a history of the church from faith to reason, to faith, to reason and to the dialectic God graced us with in his goodness and our love for goodness.
Thanks Brian for explaining a very complicated theological & historical subject in a clear-cut way; it's a clearer to me now and I feel that I can and actually want to read 'St. Thomas Aquinas and not think "boring"
Those guys you mentioned were the "Reformers" who "lost" at Vatican II
Thank you for this, beautiful as always!
Oooo my great grandfather’s name was tertullian ...not joking hehe love St Thomas Aquinas. Very good explanation. Thank you so much
May God bless you. I have learnt so much from you and I will pray for you.
Great and useful video Brian. I am just beginning my study of Thomas Aquinas
Thank you for this knowledge video filled with Wisdom 🙏❤️ God bless you 🙏
Great stuff! Logic and Reason are the reasons that I joined the Church of England. I was raised Church of God. Thanks! 😎
Those are very helpful insights. Thanks for this!
I really appreciate the historical backing you gave the Second Vatican Council. I was born while it was taking place, went to Catholic grade school while its changes got implemented. Your account puts names to the 2VC - real people battled during it, which you put the names to - the first time I ever heard such details this way. I think 2VC remains controversial. For me, it introduced a soft, lazy, unaccountable element to living faith that makes it really easy to lose the encounter of personal sacrifice, humility, and sometimes aggravating patience it takes to appreciate Christ's suffering and sacrifice of his life out of incomprehensible love of us - of me. Now, how do we personally know when the answer is more faith and when the answer more reason? That is an eternal challenge.
Solid stuff Brian. Thanks.
Amen. Awesome necessary info for catholics.
Hi Brian - Excellent video. It gave me a renewed appreciation of St. Thomas Aquinas' thought as an Eastern Catholic. Please accept the following generously as I try to make it with humility: I wanted to just make a small correction to the notion that Thomism is synonymous with Catholicism. Thomism clearly has a relevance for all Catholics (East and West), but I think it's probably more appropriate to say that Thomism is synonymous with Roman [Western] Catholicism, but I wouldn't say that Thomism as a theological expression is synonymous with Byzantine/Syriac [Eastern] Catholicism. While Thomism is not contradictory with Eastern theology, but understood as complimentary, it is nonetheless quite different and tends to ask and answer very different questions than the East. In broad strokes, we can say the Latin Church is more reason-oriented, yielding knowledge, where the East is more spirit-oriented, yielding wisdom (but of course, both are in each - I'm talking about what is emphasized more so). The Roman Catholic tradition expresses itself logically, in a legal sense, and is concerned about precision and orderliness in the conveyance of truth, where the Eastern Catholic tradition expresses theology in poetry and song (e.g. St. Ephrem the Syrian - Doctor of the Church) - it may even sometimes see precision, orderliness, and being learned and legal-minded as an impediment, while preferring simplicity, metaphor, the narrative, ambiguous poetry, or maybe no words at all and employs iconography to teach instead. The Roman Catholic theological tradition is scholastic (1000AD - present) and the Eastern Catholic spiritual tradition is Patristic (4th/5th century - 1000AD). My only point is that scholasticism is primarily a Western Church tradition and not so much an Eastern Church so when we say "Thomism = Catholicism", while I think there is definitely truth to that in a sense, it's more accurate perhaps to say Thomism is the Roman patrimony and heritage. It is the backbone of how Rome expresses itself for the benefit of the whole Universal Church (East/West), but it is not necessarily something that captures the whole of the Catholic tradition, I'd argue (which the word 'synonymous' tends to imply). That statement has nothing to do with theologians from the '60s, but rather with the teaching of the Church Fathers and mystical tradition of the monastics who followed in the footsteps of the Desert Fathers. These two expressions make up the whole of Catholicism, and without each other I feel we both suffer some loss. Would that the Orthodox someday feel similarly and we all be one. God bless and Thank you for the great content. Christ is Risen!!
This is very interesting to me and, admittedly a bit of a blind spot in this video. I wish I had time to discuss it at length with someone like you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@@BrianHoldsworth It was for me to until last year when the Lord called me to go Eastern. This is understandable since Eastern Catholics are a relative minority in the Catholic Church. What it means to be 'Catholic' has really been enriched and deepened for me since I've been attending Divine Liturgy in the Ukrainian Catholic Church [Byzantine tradition]. It's a great gift to be a Catholic - that is, to be whole. Thanks!
This is amazinh Brian... Very helpful, but can't take my eyes those guitars. Are they Gibsons?
Outstanding clear summation!
And it's obvious which theology is in vogue throughout most of the Church today, from the top on down: from vacillating Bergoglio to sycophant cardinals, celebrity bishops (Barron), to "carnival barker" priests who instruct the faithful on the latest novelty.
Hope you unveil how the Church has gone into an "eclipse" since chaotic Vatican II.
The great French philosopher (one can also call him a theologian) Etienne Gilson (1884-1978) had, I believe, the correct interpretation of St Thomas in saying that all of the Summa Theologiae is theology, and that what looks like philosophy is actually a philosophy that has been enlightened, transformed, elevated, and subsumed into theology, like at Cana water was turned to wine, as St Thomas says. See amazon.com/Reason-Thomas-Aquinas-According-Etienne/dp/153979069X
Excellent, so appreciated your presentation, thank you
Wow this was a great video. I learned so much in so little time. Thank You
Yet another great show. Thank you soooooo much!!
4:24 🤷🏻♂️ would be great if the protesting Christians would use thus regarding the most Holy Eucharist 🕊️🌹📿
GOD bless
I get distracted by the backgrounds TH-camrs choose. Often you see books and guitars. “Not only is this guy smart. He’s talented as well.”
Wonderful, thank you.
"What does Kung believe?" "Not much."