Ad majorem Dei gloriam! (“For the greater glory of God” motto of the Society of Jesus [Jesuits])

If you don’t mind, could you explain a little as to what led you to Thomistic theology? I’m a Catholic, and recently had a conversation with a Calvinist regarding faith and grace. In all honesty, he left me with many questions, and I wasn’t entirely sure how to answer his objections to free will.

@@russbus1967 Calvinism is a perfect systematic theology. It really is flawless. My issue with it (why I left) is that I think it answers questions that Scripture does not tell us. In other words, in order to make sense of things, Calvinism takes it too far. My attraction to Thomistic thought was that while Aquinas answers a lot of questions, he leaves tension and mystery where it is needed.

@@merecatholicity I think that’s a fair assessment. My most prevalent thought after my recent conversation was that Calvinism seems hyper-logical, that it is inspired by an unhealthy desire for certainty regarding faith and grace. Thanks.

@@russbus1967 My thoughts exactly.

Praise God

Yup actual grace for the conversion as well. Happened maybe 2 weeks later.

Cheers!

Our pleasure!

We're glad it was helpful! May the Lord bless you!

Thank you!

Have you tried the auto-translate function in the closed captions (CC)?

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qriRZ7CZz6rOdmQ.html

Thank you, Alfred!

Cheers!

Thanks!

Cheers!

You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

Glad it was helpful! God can, and does, act at any time of life. May he bless you!

Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

Have you taken a look at this video yet? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l7xieqp-29a2qmQ.html

@@ThomisticInstitute yes, I did. It was excellent. But still I don't see in which way Aquinas and Augustine's view differ? In essence they are the same but I have read a few scholars who say that Aquinas "tweaked" Augustine a little bit. The only thing I see is St Thomas developing Augustine's ideas. Do you see any meaningful difference between their views of predestination? thank you so much. You guys are in my prayers

@@HosannaInExcelsis To be honest, I don't know St. Augustine well enough to make a meaningful comparison. What is more, St. Augustine is often read through the interpretation of Calvin, Jansen, Baius, and others, which may make it more difficult to distinguish St. Augustine from his reception. I'd recommend Garrigou-Lagrange on this issue (Predestination and Grace are both great texts). You might also read St. Augustine's On Grace and Free Will and compare to St. Thomas's treatise on grace in the Prima Secundae. Sorry, I can't be of more help!

@@ThomisticInstitute No worries. Thank you so much. Right now in the protestant world there is a very significant debate since a new study from a recent Oxford Thesis claims that Augustine intoduced "maniquean determinism" into the Church teachings. I'll leave the link here in case anyone is interested in studying this topic kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eNR_gLKDrLOWgas.html. I am also reading all the books you recommended me. Fascinating topics indeed.

@@HosannaInExcelsis Excellent! God bless your studies.

Can anyone help out with this?

God is so gracious that he is the very actuating principle of the very ability (active potency) to open and close your eyes, such that he gives you the freedom to use the ability by which you "see" or not "see" him.

God gives sufficient grace to all, however, this sufficient grace, despite being truly sufficient, is inneficacious, because of our will's resistance to it. For a man to be converted, he needs to be granted an intrinsically efficacious grace, that will make he freely accept it. This grace is not given to all.

​​@@tiagoviana5161correct. How is this fair though? How can man be guilty of sin if he cannot avoid it without the intrinsically efficacious grace that is not given to him?

There will not for this series, but we plan to keep rolling this out for many months to come, so it's something we could cover in the future . . .

@@ThomisticInstitute Up until what topic will the series end? The people need more of these, so we're willing to wait for more quality content.

@@kevinroque5374 Right now, we're planned through November with this course. Then we'll have short courses on virtues and then faith and science. That'll take us through August of 2021. Now taking requests for future courses!

@@ThomisticInstitute Looking forward to it! If I were to request something, I'm keenly interested on a deeper take on St. Thomas' moral philosophy and the relation it has with epistemology. Will concupiscence be covered at this current series?

@@kevinroque5374 Just in the treatment of Original Sin. You might try these two videos on the theme: 1. Original Sin - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ipughtWd15fWen0.html 2. Born Broken? Aquinas on Original Sin - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i9eKYMWEyc64iWQ.html

We aren't determined the choose based on our desires. Look for Steven Jensens 2017 paper on a libertarian interpretation of Aquinas philosophy of choice

@@callums6570 Thanks for the tip - just sent him an email asking for the paper and giving him a few questions as well! Hopefully he is just what I am looking for.

@@michaeldonohue8870 you should by his book 'sin' which covers the whole topic of choice, culpability etc. Really good book. Most of his stuff is

@@callums6570 Thanks for hopping in!

Let us know once you've read Jensen whether the question perdures . . .

Yes.

A good bit has been written about this question. One of the best little introductions is Anselm Moynihan's The Presence of God. St. Elizabeth of the Trinity also has a lot to say about the indwelling Trinity that accords squarely with the teaching of St. Thomas.

@@ThomisticInstitute great - thanks for taking time to respond! What a great online ministry you are offering!

With sufficient grace, God gives man the power to perform the salutary act; with efficacious grace, God actually causes man to freely perform the act (although God doesn’t coerce man; man remains free). With sufficient grace, man’s power to perform the salutary act remains in potency and is never actualized (because God allows man to resist the grace). With efficacious grace, man’s power to resist the grace is in potency and is never actualized (because God moves man to freely respond to the grace). With the latter, the grace is intrinsically efficacious; with the former, it is inefficacious but truly sufficient. This means that God is the cause of all good and salvation, and man is responsible for all evil and damnation. Because God grants grace according to the eternal decrees of His will, Thomists generally hold that the antecedent will is the principle of sufficient grace, and the consequent will is the principle of efficacious grace. In His antecedent will, God wills all men to be saved and thus gives all men sufficient grace to that end (God considers each person absolutely). But in view of the greater good of the universe, He consequently wills to infallibly save His elect, and to permit the reprobate to be damned (God considers each person relative to the whole). It follows that the good that God antecedently wills, and the sufficient grace He grants to all men, are not efficacious, whereas His consequent will and the related grace He eternally decrees for His elect are efficacious. Thus, St. Thomas says, “It is clear that whatever God simply [consequently] wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place.” Because God unconditionally elects man to salvation based on His decree and not foreseen merits, man does not determine the type of grace he receives. God has decreed the grace He would bestow upon man from all eternity. As St. Paul says, “Or what hast thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. 4: 7). St.Thomas comments on this verse: “Who is it that distinguisheth thee from the mass of those who are lost? This is more than thou canst do. Who is it that makes thee superior to another? Thou thyself canst not do this, and therefore why art thou proud of thyself?” If you have any more questions you can add me on Discord: Roman_Catholic#8415

I am no theologian, but given the clasification in the video, you could refuse to accept all grace, which would effectively be the same.

Nicolas Delgado thanks for your input

Excuse me Nick, has anyone been able to clear up your confusion?

@@goeb16 Hey thanks for asking. No one has been able to answer my questions about salvation/co-redemption, either here or anywhere haha I've asked priests, theologians - they have some theories, but they inevitably fall short of answering the question. It seems the Church doesn't actually know how exactly it works.

@@nickk4851 Ok, I am sorry no one has been able to answer your question. Your previous comment is a little confusing. Could you please succinctly ask your question one more time?

@@goeb16 Very kind of you to try to help - thank you. Basically I'm asking about co-redemption (I think that's what it's called). To get straight to the point, I could ask a question like this: Will souls go to hell if you and I don't pray and offer up our sacrifices for them? If the answer is "yes", then that would seem to imply that you and I can save people that God can't or won't, which sounds ridiculous and completely false, based on who God is, His will to save all, His power to save, and the fact that I can't even save myself let alone anyone else. So to imply that souls would be lost as a result of ME not praying enough doesn't seem like it could be true. If the answer is "no" ... well that could have many implications for how people seem to understand co-redemption and the missionary activity of the Church. It would also cast suspicion on the Marian apparition of Our Lady of Fatima.

@@nickk4851 Hey Nick, thank you for responding to my last comment! I just wanted to quickly check in and say that it will most likely take me a long time to digest your question and then thoughtfully answer it to the best of my ability. I don't want you to think that I have disregarded your question! And, obviously, if someone else comes along who is more theologically orthodox and more qualified, please refer to their response, because I am just an untrained laymen who enjoys seeking the Truth and trying to help my fellow seekers along the way. Thank you again for responding and I hope I can answer question soon!

If you are Catholic, the sacraments! Going to confession is a sure way to receive anew the graces of God into our life as we are reconciled to the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. Everyone has sinned (walked away from God) and falls short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23 paraphrase). You are not alone, and God surely desires for you to return to him. And in answer to what happens to those who walk away once? He will make you new. :)

@@Katie-yc4el Ok. Katie thank you. I will be in contact with my local priest. What if im not exactly Catholic, but still maybe in need of support, and believers, and wise people around me?

@@MrAvaraa Praise God! I'll give an analogy, if I may. In the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke Ch. 15), the son walks away from his family. His process of returning has several parts: 1) he realizes what he lost 2) he begins journeying back to his father, prepared to be treated only as a hired worker 3) he is reunited with his father, as his father embraces and kisses him 4) the feast is prepared, and the son is reunited with the larger community. This is a symbol of our return to a life of grace. First, we realize our sinfulness, then we journey to confession with conviction on our hearts. When we receive absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation, it's as if the Heavenly Father comes to embrace and kiss us! After we have been reconciled with the father, we are then reconciled with and surrounded by the father's household (of believers) like the prodigal son. I'm not sure what you mean by not exactly Catholic, but my point is that even if you were perfectly Catholic, you would also need support of believers and wise people around you. It is good that you desire it. This can be achieved through many ways - getting involved with service work, going to bible studies, spending time in prayer or spiritual direction. I can promise you that the more you strive for God, and run toward him, you will soon look to your right and left and find that others are also running the good race with you.

@@MrAvaraa Feel free to reach out to me on Facebook also! I would love to hear your story.

@@Katie-yc4el Loving your energy and kindness. What is your name on Facebook? Im this same, Antti Kuikka. Im trying to be similar to the prodigal son. Its a bit working already.

I believe that would be correct, but the friars surely know better than me

That's correct! God moves the will by a sweet and strong impulse that is intrinsically efficacious. As the liturgy recounts, "even our desire to praise Him is itself His gift."

@@ThomisticInstitute I am troubled by that statement as it can be construed to mean that God is responsible for our sins and even our damnation because He doesn't give us the grace to accept His grace. We know that this conclusion is wrong but i see the only way to avoid it to say simply that God makes grace available to all aand we have the power of choice to either accept or reject His grace.

In the thomistic view God is not responsible for our sins. We are responsible. The problem ist that God does not want all and everyone to be seved: some are condemned simply because they do not belong to the elects. This is NOT the Faith of the catholic Church, but it is its official theology. I am a Roman Catholic myself: I believe in the Church Christ founded but most of the western theology is heretical speculation.

I believe it is merely semantic. You might be interested in Blaise Pascal's Provincial Letters. Besides, Calvin cited Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux when discussing grace. The papal bull Unigenitus forced the Dominicans to be clever with their words.

I’m checking it out thanks brother! Jc do you hold to a molinistic or thomistic view of soteriology by any chance? I’m becoming Catholic and was raised reformed Baptist and I’m digging into it again it’s been a hot minute.

@@nathanmontgomery5535 I'm also from a reformed background but I'm now Catholic and I tend to be more on the thomistic side. I find the practical implications of molinism too obscuring regarding habits. Why cultivate good habits if my acts aren't ultimately influenced by them? From what I gather, the impetus to find an alternative to the thomistic view came from dissatisfaction with St Bernard's definition of free will, but I find St Bernard's explanation of the fall and of free will in his book on grace satisfactory. The old Princeton theologians (I think I remember this from Hodge's Outlines of Theology) viewed the calvinist/methodist split as roughly parallel to the jansenist/jesuit split within the Catholic church, with the Calvinists and jansenists being on the Augustinian side. When the jansenists were definitively condemned by the Vatican, the Dominicans who wanted to stay on the Augustinian side basically adopted the new acceptable verbiage but with their particular definitions, leaving them technically legitimate and also consistent with Aquinas's tradition.

@@TheCanadamailmaster I see where you are coming from. I also feel like the Molinist view can take away from man's free will because one's choice seems completely contingent on the situational factors in one's life, but I need to study it more, basically saying if you went experienced these events you might have chosen God, but since you did not you did not choose God..but I might be totally butchering the concept. I am currently reading up on the debates between the Dominican's and the Jesuits. I feel like I can explain the TULIP all day long, but everything else is very new to me. Can a Thomist truly say that God grants intrinsically efficacious grace to some yet sufficient grace for all and that some are saved by this sufficient grace alone? Btw, praise God that He led you to The Church man!

Sufficient grace saves NOBODY. This is the problem with the thomistic view of predestination and it was clearly seen by the jansenist.

“RCC churches not believe or teach Thomistic doctrine” is an oxymoron: The Catholic Church (with capital C) is the one Mystical Body of Christ devided in 24 sui juris autonomous Churches all in full communion to each other and the Pope, that the Roman Catholic Church (even though the most populous and present in the West) is but one; alongside the: Maronite Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church… “RCC churches” (with lowercase C) are the temple buildings of the Roman Catholics and they cannot “not believe or teach” anything, and the clergy that are bound to them cannot go against “Thomistic doctrine” without falling in heresy (condemned beliefs against the one true one revealed to the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church by God).

hello there! in trying to answer your dilemma, i think it is wise to develop this idea " You can't freely do something in ignorance of what it is you're doing" . i don't think you can do anything in ignorance of what you're doing in order to act freely, Aquinas says, we must elect a certain object as good (at least apparently good), in order to pursue it. That is to say, freedom is the rational ordering of the will toward the apparent good. But the intelect can err, when an individual chooses an apparent good that is contrary to The Good, and that is called a sin; By sinning, one’s freedom is reduced, because we will develop an habit of acting sinfully. I hope this is correct and it helps, God love you

@@joaodealbuquerque8819 Thanks for the reply! I would agree with most of what you said. Of course you can freely choose to pursue the (apparent)good of the candle, as shown in the video. The question, however, is, whether that free choice for the candle can at the same time be a free rejection of God. Given the knowledge requirement of freedom it implies that I know God to be the greater good and yet I choose the lesser good. That is impossilbe given the classical understanding of human action. You can't both know God to be your greatest good and reject him at the same time. The only way you could reject him is by not knowing him to be your greatest good. But even in that case you couldn't reject God, because you would only reject a figment of your imagination which differs from God in not being the greatest good, and, given divine simplicity, is therefore unlike God in every respect. My conclusion is that it's utterly impossible to reject God qua God.

@@CIVIAN I agree completely. When people reject God, they do not know Him, and reject only a caricuture of Him. If people trully knew Him, they wouldn't reject Him. they'd love God. I guess that's what the beatific vision is.

@@joaodealbuquerque8819 Great line, brother: "When people reject God, they do not know Him, and reject only a caricuture of Him." I'm borrowing that one!

João Albuquerque then how can we say that those in Hell are there because they rejected God?

Not really conviction I suppose works more like a revelation. God grants you the understanding or removes whatever that is inhabiting you from seeing the rightness or wrongness of your action.