Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . : ) . . .
This discussion makes me want to start a mayor in Philosophy of Religion... and another in Theology. I listen to this podcast regularly because I have a deep desire of wisdom and knowledge and I see it satisfied to a great extent. Thank you Matt for sharing this.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . : ) . . .
I wish Ed Feser spoke some more. Bishop Barron is great and I love hearing bishops debate philosophy (like the good old days 😉). But would’ve loved to hear dr. Feser pull pull out all the stops
Bishop Barron is so on the money. WLC is a phenomenal apologist, but he is flat-out wrong on this one. To view God as the best possible being, you are conceding that this being must operate within a "realm" or "reality" that is more fundamental than that being. God *must* be the ground of all existence. He must be existence itself.
I find it funny that in a world full of uncertainty Christians can say things like "God is a mystery" and "clearly he's X, he must be." God doesn't live in fallen world. He is beyond space and time. Why is it that in a world that is not fallen couldnt operate with different physics? Something that we don't understand, the actualizer and potential relationship could be different. It's all speculation and they just end in brute facts. Take the begotten issue of Christ. You suspend judgement on the How, but claim you understand the What. Why tho? It's not useless though. I do believe the wrong theology has ramifications. I'm a Christian btw.
@@metatron4890 Take this with a grain of salt, as I am neither a theologian or particularly religious. The problem with Craig's view of God is that he views God as a being that contains the best possible characteristics that a being can possess. The problem with this is that words such as "best possible" infer that there are objective criterias from which a being can be evaluated. Those objective criterias would then be more fundamental than the being itself. So if God were the "best possible being," he would have to possess characteristics which are logically more fundamental than he is, no different than the laws of nature being more fundamental than nature itself. God must necessarily *be* goodness itself. God must necessarily *be* being itself. He can't be the best possible being. He is being. He can't be good. He *is* goodness itself. All other beings which possess these characteristics are derivative of God, as creation is derivative of his fundamental existence. Or, rather, existence itself.
You are right! WLC's position is unattainable, and really not biblical ... His position produces a qualified / conditioned god, a supreme being among beings; supreme but still a being. But almighty God is absolutely without limit ... Being without qualification. If God is a being among beings, not the transcendent Being, source of all beings, then the neo-atheists' position will be attainable! Only God who is absolutely "I am who am" can be God who is absolutely personal, to every beings, according to their respective manner of being...
As a Catholic convert from Fundamental Baptistic Protestantism, it's funny to see how deep we can plumb the depts of God and still only scratch the surface. On the one extreme we have "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so", and on the other, a discussion such as this. Remarkable! It just demonstrates how sola scriptura isnt even consistently held by those who claim it. For WLC relies on ideas and concepts wholly without the canon. We need more of these discussions in Christendom. Thank you Bishop Barron and WLC!
Charles Ray While this discussion was edifying, I cringed when Thomistic simplicity was called controversial and pagan doctrine. Strong expositions of simplicity and impassibility: th-cam.com/play/PLFAW3ZRmnj7JF7gm9DgVH6efuJnDqQLgS.html
Sola scriptura states that the bible is the FINAL authority on christian belief, doctrine and faith, not the ONLY authority. Scripture supercedes tradition, theologians, the church. If a teaching from one of the secondary sources DOES NOT contradict the bible or create obvious harm then its a neutral issue. Divine simplicity is not a " make or break" issue and the fact is you will never know the nature of God.
All due respect to Barron, he wasn’t persuasive enough in his replies to Craig, the latter seemingly having the better arguments. It should have been Feser vs Craig
So how does one reconcile divine simplicity with the incarnation where God takes on a human nature and at which people can point to an instance and give God attributes? I either didn't hear much in the way of a response to this or did but didn't understand it
Len k Check out St Gregory Palamas. Absolute divine simplicity is untenable. Jay Dyer has a prolific amount of content addressing this issue on TH-cam.
It's just God with a body? I don't see the problem. God didn't become any lesser by taking control of some small part of material reality that is within him. Jesus is fully God and fully man. Just like my nature doesn't change whether I have my body or not, in the same way God's nature doesn't change whether he doesn't have a body or does.
If there are traditions of understanding, apparently there also are traditions of mis-understanding... The truth is that which has the most explanatory power. WL Craig's position is unattainable, and really not biblical in core ... His position envisaged a qualified / conditioned god, granted a supreme being; supreme but still a being among beings. If God is a (qualified) being among beings, not the transcendent Being (source of all beings), then the Neo-atheists' position will be attainable! Ironically, a supreme being, still a being among beings, being in 'competition' to other beings, cannot be fully personal to any being. But almighty God is absolutely without limit ... Being without qualification; simply Being divine. Seems the correct understanding: Only God who is absolutely "I am who Am" - ipsum esse subsistens God, can be God who is absolutely personal, to every beings - according to their respective manner of being...
"The Mystery of God - Sample Lesson" on Bishop Barron's TH-cam channel explains it more clearly. Also, check out "The Forerunners of the Reformation" by Scott Hahn, on Journey Home Network International TH-cam channel - th-cam.com/video/CTMX4C169bg/w-d-xo.html
Matt, don't short yourself. In your own unique way, you ARE a Thomistic Digital Evangelization Expert. You're doing a great job man!
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
: )
. .
.
This discussion makes me want to start a mayor in Philosophy of Religion... and another in Theology. I listen to this podcast regularly because I have a deep desire of wisdom and knowledge and I see it satisfied to a great extent. Thank you Matt for sharing this.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
: )
. . .
I wish Ed Feser spoke some more. Bishop Barron is great and I love hearing bishops debate philosophy (like the good old days 😉). But would’ve loved to hear dr. Feser pull pull out all the stops
Bishop Barron is so on the money. WLC is a phenomenal apologist, but he is flat-out wrong on this one. To view God as the best possible being, you are conceding that this being must operate within a "realm" or "reality" that is more fundamental than that being. God *must* be the ground of all existence. He must be existence itself.
I find it funny that in a world full of uncertainty Christians can say things like "God is a mystery" and "clearly he's X, he must be." God doesn't live in fallen world. He is beyond space and time. Why is it that in a world that is not fallen couldnt operate with different physics? Something that we don't understand, the actualizer and potential relationship could be different. It's all speculation and they just end in brute facts. Take the begotten issue of Christ. You suspend judgement on the How, but claim you understand the What. Why tho? It's not useless though. I do believe the wrong theology has ramifications. I'm a Christian btw.
Can you explain why you think that there is a reality that is prior to Craig's God?
@@metatron4890 Take this with a grain of salt, as I am neither a theologian or particularly religious. The problem with Craig's view of God is that he views God as a being that contains the best possible characteristics that a being can possess. The problem with this is that words such as "best possible" infer that there are objective criterias from which a being can be evaluated. Those objective criterias would then be more fundamental than the being itself. So if God were the "best possible being," he would have to possess characteristics which are logically more fundamental than he is, no different than the laws of nature being more fundamental than nature itself. God must necessarily *be* goodness itself. God must necessarily *be* being itself. He can't be the best possible being. He is being. He can't be good. He *is* goodness itself. All other beings which possess these characteristics are derivative of God, as creation is derivative of his fundamental existence. Or, rather, existence itself.
You are right! WLC's position is unattainable, and really not biblical ... His position produces a qualified / conditioned god, a supreme being among beings; supreme but still a being. But almighty God is absolutely without limit ... Being without qualification. If God is a being among beings, not the transcendent Being, source of all beings, then the neo-atheists' position will be attainable!
Only God who is absolutely "I am who am" can be God who is absolutely personal, to every beings, according to their respective manner of being...
Begs the question. What is his being being in? A participant in being means he is a fraction amongst being. Implausible!
Oh boy. New Catholic and trying to gain some understanding of what I now believe. This is tough.
Is there a transcript of this? It would be immensely helpful.
Αctuall Aquinas said about absolute divine simplicity that is different from divine simplicity. Two different things...
As a Catholic convert from Fundamental Baptistic Protestantism, it's funny to see how deep we can plumb the depts of God and still only scratch the surface. On the one extreme we have "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so", and on the other, a discussion such as this. Remarkable!
It just demonstrates how sola scriptura isnt even consistently held by those who claim it. For WLC relies on ideas and concepts wholly without the canon.
We need more of these discussions in Christendom. Thank you Bishop Barron and WLC!
Charles Ray
While this discussion was edifying, I cringed when Thomistic simplicity was called controversial and pagan doctrine.
Strong expositions of simplicity and impassibility:
th-cam.com/play/PLFAW3ZRmnj7JF7gm9DgVH6efuJnDqQLgS.html
Sola scriptura states that the bible is the FINAL authority on christian belief, doctrine and faith, not the ONLY authority. Scripture supercedes tradition, theologians, the church. If a teaching from one of the secondary sources DOES NOT contradict the bible or create obvious harm then its a neutral issue. Divine simplicity is not a " make or break" issue and the fact is you will never know the nature of God.
@@richardjohnson6140 1Tim.3.15 says the Church is the ground floor for truth, not the Bible. Paul wrote this BEFORE there was a Bible.
I really wated to listen to this but the sound was so distorted and the speech was so fast, I couldn’t follow it.
All due respect to Barron, he wasn’t persuasive enough in his replies to Craig, the latter seemingly having the better arguments. It should have been Feser vs Craig
The err-errs !
So how does one reconcile divine simplicity with the incarnation where God takes on a human nature and at which people can point to an instance and give God attributes? I either didn't hear much in the way of a response to this or did but didn't understand it
Len k Check out St Gregory Palamas. Absolute divine simplicity is untenable. Jay Dyer has a prolific amount of content addressing this issue on TH-cam.
It's just God with a body? I don't see the problem. God didn't become any lesser by taking control of some small part of material reality that is within him. Jesus is fully God and fully man. Just like my nature doesn't change whether I have my body or not, in the same way God's nature doesn't change whether he doesn't have a body or does.
If there are traditions of understanding, apparently there also are traditions of mis-understanding...
The truth is that which has the most explanatory power.
WL Craig's position is unattainable, and really not biblical in core ... His position envisaged a qualified / conditioned god, granted a supreme being; supreme but still a being among beings.
If God is a (qualified) being among beings, not the transcendent Being (source of all beings), then the Neo-atheists' position will be attainable!
Ironically, a supreme being, still a being among beings, being in 'competition' to other beings, cannot be fully personal to any being.
But almighty God is absolutely without limit ... Being without qualification; simply Being divine. Seems the correct understanding: Only God who is absolutely "I am who Am" - ipsum esse subsistens God, can be God who is absolutely personal, to every beings - according to their respective manner of being...
To much brainy talk for me 😂
Very hard issue to get your head around. I kinda understand it, but couldn't go near it to debate it.
"The Mystery of God - Sample Lesson" on Bishop Barron's TH-cam channel explains it more clearly. Also, check out "The Forerunners of the Reformation" by Scott Hahn, on Journey Home Network International TH-cam channel - th-cam.com/video/CTMX4C169bg/w-d-xo.html