Thomas Aquinas (part 1)
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- Support the channel on Patreon: patreon.com/user?u=23593673
My books (affiliate links):
"How We Got Our Bible" (Zondervan, 2018): amzn.to/2MtmSYY
"Story of Creeds and Confessions" (Baker Academic, 2019): amzn.to/3OVDyGQ
All material is copyrighted.
Thank you for uploading all of these wonderful lectures. We take a lot of modern advances for granted, and I know it must be quite a bit of work for you to do all of this, so thanks.
"Grace perfects nature " ! That has a nice ring to it
Aquinas resonates with the Apostle Paul, as one who applied the intellect in faith to derive truths which are beyond the grasp of the natural mind. When Aquinas says "Grace perfects nature," then 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 comes to mind: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ."
Thank you Ryan Reeves . you've provided me with my first proper introduction to Thomas Aquinas . I've always skipped over him in the past ... "Grace perfects nature" . what a beautiful thought! and the question of how to 'marry' faith and reason is . in my humble opinion . THE big sociological/philosophical question of our times ... I'm looking forward to Part 2!
But how come such an educational and informational channel don't have a million followers
Thank you very much for lecturing on Thomism. My favorite philosopher.
Great video! Thanks for taking the time to make it.
This is great. Look foward to pt 2.
Highly interesting! worth seeing and hearing
A very clear and helpful video - thank you.
I enjoy your videos.Thank you so much Ryan for your hard work to prepare them. Your videos are very useful for Theological lecturers and students.
Really bice work. i have learned much from you Doctor Reeves. Thank you
Sir, thank you for your videos. They are fantastic!
Radiant, Dr. Reeves! Radiant!!
Thank you, Dr. Ryan Reeves for your time I know you from Ligonier Ministries.
In a feudal system sometimes parents like to hedge their bets. One son goes to group A and the other goes to group B. This occurs very frequently, you see this in battles with brother against brother.....at least one will come ahead. What was the connection between Tom and Pope John XXI?
Great Content. Thank you.
very good series
Ryan seems to be very impartial . I like this about him .
Your videos are very educational and well done. I hope you can create one on Millenialism.
Very good exposition of Thomas and Thomism. By the way, the name of the town Aquino is pronounced a-kween-o. See this CZcams video in Italian:
VB3RYoqK1a8
Hey, Ryan......I would have to go much further than to say that what the Angelic Doctor taught was for the Middle Ages alone. I may be stretching it, but only a bit, when I propose that our St. Thomas not only answered and purified Aristotle's questions, but all the questions from his day even till now. I might add that it has taken all these centuries, and necessarily so, for many great minds such as St. John of the Cross, St. Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, many others but most importantly, in the twentieth century, and in my estimation another Great like my patron St. Albert, by the name Reginald Garrigou Lagrange O.P., in order that St. Thomas might be "unfolded" and made so very, very clear. I has taken that long! I would be glad to expand upon this but this venue has a constraining character about it. But if you will indulge for just a moment, I can, for example, lay before you my own theory, using Thomistic Cosmology, about how the Cern physicists and other types of quantum physicists err in trying to "drag" their empiricism beyond the veil that separates the true philosophy from the material sciences. They excite themselves to the delusional state of "believing" they will discover God, but have to content themselves with only the god of just another shattered atom. They are material scientists, not philosophical scientists. One ought not confuse the two orders and the distinction of their proper objects; more than that, not only as concerns the material sciences but also the failed systems of thought that propose contradictions and holding them forth as philosophy. To the Cern people, however, I have to say that they are indeed "knocking" at the door of Thomism and don't even know it; what centuries of Scholastics have "fleshed out" and already know what they need to understand before they can understand what they are hoping to find, but never will, because they need the correct "tools" and it doesn't include a 17 mile Hadron collider. You also have to remember is that St. Albert the Great is known as the Father of modern science.....bet you didn't know that one. Secular histories usually stray from the reality and greatness of the science of the saints........symphonic simplicity itself. Pardon me for having gone on so.
Any chance that these scientists are actually catching a glimpse of the Creator by getting to know the stupendous complexity and astounding nature of the constituent parts that make up the material world composed of that stuff we now know is "matter/energy" as the old distinctions of blobs of matter and rays of energy are found to be poor images of the real.
I am glad that this is only part 1. :) Thanks for the upload Doc!
Are you going to discuss St Thomas' view of free will/predestination? :)
Bob Sponge // Yes it's in the mix. Part II is the build on this part and will build out as much of his theology as I can within the window of time. This one is hard to make a synopsis! So much to cover.
+Ryan Reeves i would love to hear you lecture do a lecture on George Macdonald. Read his collection of sermons a while back and they were very good, not to mention the theology behind something like Lilith.
Dr. Ryan Reevs,
May I ask you a question Sir?
How come the Eastern Orthodox church (so called Greek orthodox church) did not create such a profound philosophical speculations based on reason and logic?
A great question, to which a hundred medieval church historians would probably have as many different answers. Would be interested to hear Dr. Reeves' answer. Mine would probably have something to do with a young church, young theology during the patristic age, still combined with regards to east/west, and not separated until the 11th century. Afterwards there are doubtless more crises in terms of politics and war within the Eastern Christian empire; though all of that is narrative applied to what remains a mysterious situation. It may just be that the era of medieval scholasticism is something that was so extraordinary so as to never be replicated in quite the same way.
i would say it was simply a function of the organization of the orthodox church. there was no pope, or vatican, to ordain such orders to explore such philosophy. besides that, the ethnic/nationalistic nature of the bishopric of the orthodox church made the philosophy of a diocese more dependent on its location rather than from member priests or orders with centralized direction, closely related to the vatican.
David Deiss First, St Thomas certainly incorporates St John of Damascus, of the Eastern tradition, a great light. Second, I believe it is related to the character of the peoples, even prior to Christianity. Greeks (& Slavs) tend to be more mystical & speculative, while Romans (& Germans) tend to be more legal/relational & practical.
Because Orthodox believe Theology isn't just to be studied by book learning, but to be lived through years of asceticism, fasting, prayer, vigils etc. They believed book learning like Aristotle, Plato was important, but just studying without ascetism doesn't lead to God it leads to Atheism.
SATAN IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD Catholicism encompasses all that as well. In Catholicism it's both/and, not either/or.
Just a heads-up: "Aquino" is prounced with the "kw" sound, here, as it's Italian and not Spanish.
I don't know. That would make me the first American to ever butcher another language! :))
Haha! Of course, as Americans, we're generally more likely to have exposure to Spanish than Italian, and we're aware of Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, so the pronunciation is understandable.
I must admit though Ryan, you did covered the bases well with this lecture....better than most who treat of Thomas. It is sad to hear from some who say they have put St. Thomas to bed, or he is from that old static way of thinking. Leftists, I know, hate him.
My saint is Thomas Aquinas pilot! :D
This is basically Aquinas considered for a sub-set of (open-minded) Protestant-tradition believers (or, more broadly, the need to see God at work in both faith and reason for those who haven't really got the point, yet, or who reject the idea .. point blank). It is a welcome - and yet uncompromising - attempt to encapsulate a vast system of thought, and it is well worth the effort of following the course (though it can be demanding, so don't expect the usual web-world, dumbed-down, History Channel easy ride).
Fun fact : Dominican Republic gets its name after the Dominican friars
I used to think that the Bible was just good journalism. It was the most lonely feeling I have ever experienced.
Minor noble family??? HE WAS THE NEPHEW OF BARBAROSSA!!! HIS COUSIN IS WAS THE HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR!!! He was a related by blood to the kings of Aragon, Castile and France as well and was the member of half the royal houses of Europe.
The all-caps really help the point come out clearly....:) You're taking the word minor incorrectly. Related to does not mean he himself was to become one of these direct rulers. One can be a 'minor house' and still be connected by blood to other houses. Minor is not a synonym for insignificant. Good point to raise, though, and I'm glad you did. :)
Ryan Reeves Sorry for the caps. I was not yelling, just emphasis. He did belong a major house (Welf) at the time but to minor branch of that house.
Must be a different choice in wording: I am saying minor house meaning minor branch of the house, of course. All in all, not a major issue but of course we want to be as clear as possible! :)
Agreed... I enjoyed all your videos I have watched so far. I have always loved history since the age of 5. You should produce more in the way of history than just history of religion although history cannot be told apart from religion because Christianity is the milieu in which Western history takes place. I wish history is taught in schools instead of social studies.
by the way before Luther nailed the paper on the door he was considered a great monk by the other monks and your church.
+Matthew Anderson // Actually he was an obscure monk living in a small city. No one knew him. And by my church do you mean that I am Catholic? I am not Catholic.
+Ryan Reeves Indeed, Luther was very obscure. And despite advocating Scripture alone (something not even written in the bible), he butchered the bible, and made his own edits to it. Fortunately, his friends talked him out of removing more gospels from it that were favourable to the Church (he he needed to justify his position) and the Jewish people, as Luther was anti-semetic.
Monks and Thomas bunch of docile hypocrites...
Feel better now?
This is in the face of knowledge that monasteries preserved manuscripts and true copies, maintained literacy and bridged times when things like war and pestilence was threatening to send civilisation back to the stone age.
As for docile, have you any idea of his huge output of written work before death under the age of 50? As for hypocrisy, this libel needs to be backed up by facts.
This guy loved Aristotle more than his own parents.
He's just an Aristotle's nuthugger, not a serious theologist like any of great Fathers from 1st millennia.
+CalcioEUnico
//I'll tell you very plainly that Aquinas would have been offended if anyone called his original (or at least that/s what Peter Kreeft asserted).
//I'll also tell you he did more than just crib Aristotle. His work, like Augustine before him, was to synthesis truth with truth. Augustine worked with Plato and Christianity. Aquinas, building therefrom, included Aristotle, although one can find numerous references to Christian writers and the Bible, and even refutations of Aristotle just by reading his work.
Grace and Rust Read B.Russell's A History Of Western Philosophy. Nothing more to say than Mr. Russell already said about TA - just a pure Aristotle nuthugger. Not to mention how change from Plato's to Aristotle's philosophy destroyed the foundation of christian dogmas in Middle Age.
BTW, TA hadn't even read Aristotle in greek but in latin translations from arabic.
CalcioEUnico
//*Sigh.* Bertrand Russel couldn't even get Aristotle straight when it came to reporting whether males had more teeth than females. He couldn't get the cosmological argument right, either. No more to say; if one is merely going to dismiss a work without reading it, he will get the same treatment. Your nonsense would be refuted simply by actually going over the Summa, as I have pointed out.
//I'm obviously unaware of how Christian dogma was 'destroyed' in the Middle Ages. I would enjoy to see an explanation on that.
Grace and Rust It was destroyed by putting ancient greek atheistic (or at least - agnostic) Aristotle's philosophy as foundation of christian theology in ME.
Guy from your avatar and his mentor from Koeln did the majority of that work. Too bad West didn't follow path of great but yet underrated Bonaventure, rather than Aristole's nuthuggers.
BTW, if you do not like what Russell said about Thomism - try with some Orthodox thinkers like Zizioulas, Zenkovskiy or Mantzaridis...maybe they'll give you some insights why it's impossible to nuthug Aristotle and be faithful to dogmas of original Church.
+CalcioEUnico
1} You are obviously unfamiliar with Aristotle. In his Metaphysics, he builds a defense for the existence of God (the prime mover was his notion before St. Aquinas defended it). That is obviously not agnosticism or atheism. (I will concede that he was a deist, but that is still a far cry from agnosticism).
2} You're not explaining how this system of thinking destroyed Christian theology. I was hoping you would give details, rather than restate your thesis.
3} If you really want to go bananas over "nuthuggers," how about you go and damn St. Augustine while you're at it, and all those who followed his tradition (and still do)? They incorporated Platonism into their thinking, which can be called as bad as incorporating Aristotelianism. St. Bonaventure was an Augustinian, so I doubt you would be so consistent.
4} It is not that I dislike Bertrand Russell, it is that he can't be bothered to actually get Aristotle right, as my anecdote was meant to show. Nevertheless, I will look for material on your Eastern thinkers.
,,saint'' toma aqvinius was skizmat, catholics! Come orthodox church!
The evil Aristotle was reincarnated in the Middle Ages as Saint Thomas Aquinas.