Fr. Ambrose, this is truly a question that we needed answers to, unfortunately, it creates more questions. Such questions as "does Jesus prefer NY or Chicago style?" or "Does pineapple belong on pizza?" Alas as you suggest, we cannot know these answers until we meet the Lord in heaven. I do have a serious question though. If God exists outside of time as we perceive it, how is it that our futures are not per-determined? Does this mean that our will is never truly free and our final destination heaven and hell already known?
I don't think having knowledge of an event implies causally influencing the event. If you know that the hand of your watch is going to point to 12 in the future, does that mean that you are making it do so?
There is a video in this channel answering your question. But as others have mentioned, God knows eternity. He granted us free will, and we are indeed 100% free in all our decisions, He just knows already what we will do with our free will.
I think it would be really cool if the thomistic institute did a study version of the Compendium Theologiae and sold it as a book, aquinas’s language can be kinda difficult to understand sometimes. Or maybe a compendium theologiae in a year like Fr Mikes podcast bible in a year
I am really glad that the theologians have figured out simple ways to express important questions in theology and also simple ways to answer them... had you used concupiscible appetite and irascible appetite, no body would have understood the question, much less the answer.. May God bless your ministry 🙏🙏🙏
I have another question, Father Ambrose: I am reading now about the problem of the universals, and I have observed how authors discuss the differences between doctrines, without offering any example. One of them says that the platonic abstraction (which he says would be better characterized as a "separation", in view of the platonic cosmology) is not a true abstraction; because it intends to mentally separate the form from the matter, but in doing so -he says- it would destroy the essence of the corporeal substance, which involves both form and matter. I would like very much to know at least one example of this: How would a Platonist and an Aristotelian philosophers abstract the form/essence of a horse to produce its concept and what would be the differences between their concepts?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🍅 Can Jesus know the taste of a tomato or a pizza? This episode explores the nature of Jesus's knowledge of sensible things. 01:08 🧠 The word "know" can have different meanings: intellectual knowledge, practical knowledge, and sensory knowledge. 02:43 🍎 Our intellectual knowledge of something often grasps more information about it than our sensory experiences. 03:53 🕊️ God's divine knowledge surpasses human sensory knowledge, so He doesn't need to taste things to know them. 04:50 🌟 In the Incarnation, Jesus took on human nature with senses, allowing Him to have sensible experiences, but He never tasted things like tomatoes or pizza due to historical limitations. 05:33 🙏 The question of whether Jesus knows the taste of a tomato remains uncertain, possibly a question for the future when we meet Him. Made with HARPA AI
Dear Father Ambrose, there is a couple of statements in the proem of "De ente et essentia" which are obscure to me. Saint Thomas says that "being and essence are what is first conceived by the intellect" (which is not evident to me in the first place); but some lines below he says that, to avoid mistakes "we must point out what is signified by the words and ". If these two concepts are the first ones someone conceives, and if he conceives them correctly, any explanation would be unnecessary. On the other hand, if it is possible that someone misconceives them, then I would say that since they are primary concepts it would be impossible for the master to correct them in his mind, for two reasons: a) Primary concepts are used to explain secondary or posterior concepts, but not the opposite. b) The formation of primary concepts cannot be the result of any discourse Further, Saint Thomas says: "Thus, to avoid making mistakes out of ignorance of them...". But how could someone ignore these concepts if it were true that they are the first that the intellect conceives? Can you help me? What am I missing here? Perhaps the translation I have is not good. Thanks! JuanFlorencio
Aquinas acknowledges that being and essence are first conceived in the order of nature, as the most universal concepts the intellect apprehends of any existing thing. However, one could still misconceive their precise signification due to lack of philosophical reflection and definition. While naturally prior, they require clarification to avoid such mistakes. Aquinas aims to avoid mistakes by elucidating what he takes being and essence strictly to mean - not to generate the concepts ex nihilo, but to rectify misapprehensions. His purpose is pedagogical, to guide students already possessing the concepts to understand them adequately for metaphysical inquiry. Prior concepts can be refined through rational discourse, as developing understanding builds on natural grasps in a non-discursive way. So I think Aquinas is acknowledging the natural, non-discursive origin of being and essence, while also saying clarification is needed to ensure one comprehends their proper importance. The project is clarificatory, not generative-aiming to build rightly upon what is first known confusedly.
I have a third question, Father Ambrose; this time concerning Aristotelian abstraction, according to philosophy historian Guillermo Fraile O.P.. In volume II.a of his "Historia de la Filosofía", in a section dedicated to the controversy about universals, he describes abstraction. He says that matter and form are represented in the universal concept, but none of them in particular (as they exist in the ontological individuals), but in common or universally, that is to say, as we can find them in similar individuals which belong to the same species. Then he says that a plurality of individuals is not necessary for our understanding to exert its abstracting operation, but that only one individual is enough (but when he says this, he avoids using the word "common" to describe the concept. He just says that it discards what is mutable in the particular individual). Then, when he talks about the reality of universals, he says that they are accidents of our intellect (specifically, he says that they are qualities of our intellect). So, here is the question: If concepts are qualities of a particular intellect (my intellect, for instance), how could they be "universals"? To be "universals" shouldn't my particular intellect be universal as well?
I would respond by drawing a distinction between the mode of being of universals and the cognitive act of abstraction that forms them. While universal concepts exist as "accidents" or qualities of the individual human intellect that abstracts them, this does not preclude them from being universal in what they represent. The intellect, though a particular faculty, has the capacity through abstraction to form concepts that go beyond the individual nature. For example, when I abstract the universal "human being" from perceiving an individual man, this concept in my mind signifies not just this particular man, but the common nature or quiddity that can be participated in by any number of individuals, whether actually existing or merely possible. So the concept is universal in what it stands for - the same identical nature capable of multiple instantiations. Its mode of being as an accident in my intellect does not change its objective content or significative power. My intellect, though particular, can still form concepts that are universal in extension and intension. The metaphysics of abstraction allows for universals to be formed through a particular cognitive act yet universal in signification. The intellect abstracts from individuals to form concepts of common natures that transcend the singular.
While Jesus may never have eaten a pizza, He did experience all the pain in the world during His Passion, so it’s reasonable to think He did taste pineapple pizza.
Thank you for this engaging video. I am not sure how God does not know the sensible reality but still can have complete knowledge. On what basis did he create sensible beings if he did not know how these would sense and feel? Why should knowledge from the senses be superfluous for God or undermine God's perfect knowledge? Why does all-encompassing knowledge need to eliminate lesser knowledge? Thanks.
While God is purely spiritual and does not experience sensation in the finite, limited way we do as embodied creatures, his infinite intellect comprehends sensation and all other aspects of creation absolutely, both in their essence and relation to finite knowers. There is not really an elimination of lesser knowledge, but God's perfect knowledge must encompass it by exceeding it on the divine level. He understands sensation from the perspective of efficient and final causality in a way finite intellects cannot.
Appreciate you taking the time to make these videos. I have another question, if you don't mind. Suppose a person was infected with the zombie virus, a la World War Z or The Walking Dead. When would be the appropriate time to administer the Last Rites? When the person succumbs to the virus and becomes "the living dead", or when the person's zombified form is killed (thus putting a full and complete end to all physical and mental activity within the person)? I know a zombie probably wouldn't understand the whole Eucharistic process, but I think, when it comes to the consuming of body and blood, what they lack in understanding they make up for with a vigorous enthusiasm. Take your time responding, no answer is urgently needed. Yet.
5:38 😂. I love the blessing: "May God keep you in His Grace." !!! I have a question: please elaborate on God making the tomato taste the way it does. On a different matter, is christianity a pacifist faith? Considering Peter's act of violence on Malchus and Jesus' reaction, how do we justify any wars (specifically the Crusades)? Could a soldier land in the argument of give unto Ceaser what is Ceasar's etc? May God keep you in His Grace. #AskAFrair
Seems to me our taste-knowing of a pizza would be God's perfect understanding of pizza under severe limitations. If that counts as a different "knowing", then nobody knows what pizza tastes like because everybody would know a different pizza, since we all have different limitations: tongue efficacy, relation to time, tomato quality, etc.
Since no part of me actually touch the tomatoe, even when holding it in my hand, whatever experiences I have with it (it's color, taste and so on) are entirely created in my mind. So what actual difference is it between eating a tomatoe, watching a picture of a tomatoe, accessing a memory of eating a tomatoe or studying a tomatoe expressed as an equation?
There are important differences. For example, when you eat the tomato you assimilate part of its nutrients; and if you just study the tomato equation, you get no nutrients at all.
Alright @@michaelanderson4849. I think you need to explain why you believe your tomato experiences are created in your mind (who creates them, by the way?) because no part of you touches the tomato.
#AskAFriar How does this video relate to the rationale behind why *non-Catholics* can validly administer sacraments? Saint Cyprian and other early Fathers seem to have a pretty compelling argument that a sacrament cannot be validly administered outside the true Church, and Cyprian, it seems, plausibly distinguished between a priest who was merely morally unworthy with one who is not even a member of the Church. What is the *traditional* philosophical/theological rationale, apart from the much more modern post-Vatican II rhetoric of "imperfect communion" between Catholics, heretics, and schismatics?
I would respond by drawing a distinction between the objective validity of sacraments administered by those outside the Church, and the fullness of grace that comes from unity with Rome. St. Cyprian and other Fathers recognized the importance of the Church's authority and hierarchical structure for valid sacraments. However, they also affirm the indelible character imprinted by ordination and baptism. So while heretics and schismatics administer sacraments illicitly, the sacraments themselves are often valid due to Christ's intention and the form/matter used. For example, baptism conferred by heretics is valid, but it lacks certain spiritual effects, as the baptizer's faith is not properly ordered to the Church's head.
You have explained it Father in a very simple manner with Good every day examples practical and common examples this Theology the Apologetics and Philosophies of the Great Philosopher and Theologians and Doctors of the Church like St Thomas Aquainas with his 12 volumes of Summa Theologica written in Latin! The present Generation and our not so young Generation the Baby Boomers Generation born in the 60s now appreciate the writings of St Thomas k! More of this videos! More Power k! Godbless us all k!
Great video and very instructive. Related to this topic I have the following question: considering that Jesus Christ knew he had to die to redeem us, did he know exactly how this was going to happen (i.e.: crucifixion); or Did he simply know that he had to die in order to redeem us but *did not* know exactly how that was going to take place? #AskAFriar
Christ knew all things from eternity, including the precise manner of his Passion and death. However, in his human nature, which was fully rational yet possessed the limitations of our condition, Christ did not know the hour of his death prior to his incarnation (Mk 13:32). So as God, he knew he must redeem us through the cross; but in his human intellect and will, dependent on divine illumination, he learned of these details gradually through obedience to the Father.
#AskAFriar since God is the one who elevates our intellect to perform good actions, and since He answers prayers that are according to His will and plan of salvation, if I pray to never fall into mortal sin again in my life, can I be sure He will answer this prayer and I will never fall into mortal sin again?
I have an underdeveloped supposition that Jesus and all those who share His Resurrection will/do have all such trivial sensible knowledge by virtue of the lumen gloriae and the redounding of Goodness throughout our nature. But what will a pizza be like then? "Eye has not seen...."
I htink that Jesus, and also Adam and Eve before the fall, were not touched by concupiscence. That is to say His needs and wants were perfectly obedient and equal to His will. Us men, we want to remain faithful to our wives, but our bodies are sensitive to the charms of other women. There is a tention, and we need to fight. We want things we know we're not supposed to have. This is a struggle that did not exist before the fall. I assume Jesus was also spared by it. But now comes another question for me: what was the nature of the temptation of Jesus in the desert?
@ThomisticInstitute Follow up question: So it’s God’s knowledge that makes the tomato taste the way it does, yet his knowledge of the tomato doesn’t include the sensory knowledge of the taste. Here’s the question - does God know what it’s like for me to taste a tomato? Clearly, God doesn’t taste, but I do. Thanks
Through his infinite intellect, God comprehends perfectly the nature and operations of everything in creation - including what it is like for a human being to taste a tomato based on our sensory faculties and mental representation of qualia. So we can say God understands tasting a tomato through you in virtue of his perfect self-knowledge and knowledge of his creation. In this way, God knows what it is like for you to taste a tomato through an analogical, not univocal, mode of understanding.
"Jesus doesn't need to taste a tomato to know it." Yeah, but the real question is this: does God experience the phantasm of tomato taste without having to taste it?
Cute, not a question I would have thought about asking Jesus when I meet him. But I don't wonder that we will be so enamored of his face any previous questions we have in this life will be … well, we won't care about the answers perhaps. I think of this C. S. Lewis quote: "Heaven will solve our problems, but not, I think, by showing us subtle reconciliations between all our apparently contradictory notions. The notions will all be knocked from under our feet. We shall see that there never was any problem."-- C. S. Lewis
What kind of question is this If I tell you what is the food thatJesus eat Peoples knowledge is not same of God Ways of God is not our ways Or the knowledge of ours Distance is heaven in earth
So, being able to do and know all things don't imply that you have to do and know everything through each and every way. Since by God's knowledge He creates the tomato's taste into existence, He doesn't need to taste it with a tongue to know the taste. But through His fully human nature in Jesus, God experiences what God previously didn't, like suffering and death. And so, through Jesus, God truly suffered and died, and raised. And hence also, Jesus didn't taste tomato through the human way of tasting unless after the resurrection He traveled to the Americas and took tomatoes.
This seems to imply that God does not know what English or opera sound like, or what Americans or St. Peter's look like, that he made the whole world but does not know what it looks like, which seems puzzling. I don't see why His intellectual/abstract knowledge or omniscience would exclude a kind of sensible knowledge. But also, does he know how the world looks to you or me?
As the one through whom all things were made and are sustained at every moment, God knows objectively and perfectly the essence of all languages, appearances, locations and so on. More than this, his omniscience encompasses a grasp of how the world appears to each individual intellect through their subjective viewpoint, while simultaneously holding the comprehensive, eternal perspective beyond any limitation. In this way, God's knowledge surpasses discursivity yet includes a non-sensory, intuitive understanding of all sensible and perceptual realities from creation in themselves and as related to finite intellects. His is a knowledge that far exceeds any created mode of apprehension, encompassing all things both as they truly are and how they relate to limited perspectives.
Thomistic Institute friends, I disagree, I think Jesus knew what a pizza tastes like because in the beginning when it was God, no creatures (so no creature like flavors or tomato or pizza was there yet) just the Trinity, Jesus already a God-Man even if there was a no need to be a God-Man yet, God was truly All Knowing) was already there and they knew before they even designed anything into creature (including flavors) which is mind boggling, coz' even if one can 100% see the future, you'd need events (a creature as well, a part of creation, events are partly created by creatures with wills, meaning not just cosmological events which someday coz' of tech advanced we will truly affect directly aka like a Death Star) to know the future but God knew even before. I think Jesus knew what pizza tastes like (more so that the best pizza since that's goodness did come from God anyway, the pizza idea came from God and only God knows the perfect taste of pizza) ours is actually but a glimpse of what a perfect pizza tastes like but it's more of Jesus not using any advanced knowledge that's not for its time (I would argue He could build starships at that time but those would be inferior compared to the ease of supernatural miracles or parting of the Red Sea without any advanced pumps which would still be inferior to a miracle). God bless.
Yes, we're finally asking the big questions!
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
Fr. Ambrose, this is truly a question that we needed answers to, unfortunately, it creates more questions. Such questions as "does Jesus prefer NY or Chicago style?" or "Does pineapple belong on pizza?" Alas as you suggest, we cannot know these answers until we meet the Lord in heaven. I do have a serious question though. If God exists outside of time as we perceive it, how is it that our futures are not per-determined? Does this mean that our will is never truly free and our final destination heaven and hell already known?
Yeah!
Yeah!
I don't think having knowledge of an event implies causally influencing the event. If you know that the hand of your watch is going to point to 12 in the future, does that mean that you are making it do so?
God allows you to freely choose, but He also knows what you will choose anyway. But that act of choosing is not His, but yours.
There is a video in this channel answering your question. But as others have mentioned, God knows eternity. He granted us free will, and we are indeed 100% free in all our decisions, He just knows already what we will do with our free will.
I love this channel, I need to watch more of his videos
O shqipe ku je
It's kinda the best 👍
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
I think it would be really cool if the thomistic institute did a study version of the Compendium Theologiae and sold it as a book, aquinas’s language can be kinda difficult to understand sometimes. Or maybe a compendium theologiae in a year like Fr Mikes podcast bible in a year
That would be EXCELLENT. Fr. Mike's Bible in a Year and Catechism in a Year are fantastic at "dumbing down" complex books!!!
I am really glad that the theologians have figured out simple ways to express important questions in theology and also simple ways to answer them...
had you used concupiscible appetite and irascible appetite, no body would have understood the question, much less the answer..
May God bless your ministry 🙏🙏🙏
I have another question, Father Ambrose: I am reading now about the problem of the universals, and I have observed how authors discuss the differences between doctrines, without offering any example. One of them says that the platonic abstraction (which he says would be better characterized as a "separation", in view of the platonic cosmology) is not a true abstraction; because it intends to mentally separate the form from the matter, but in doing so -he says- it would destroy the essence of the corporeal substance, which involves both form and matter. I would like very much to know at least one example of this: How would a Platonist and an Aristotelian philosophers abstract the form/essence of a horse to produce its concept and what would be the differences between their concepts?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🍅 Can Jesus know the taste of a tomato or a pizza? This episode explores the nature of Jesus's knowledge of sensible things.
01:08 🧠 The word "know" can have different meanings: intellectual knowledge, practical knowledge, and sensory knowledge.
02:43 🍎 Our intellectual knowledge of something often grasps more information about it than our sensory experiences.
03:53 🕊️ God's divine knowledge surpasses human sensory knowledge, so He doesn't need to taste things to know them.
04:50 🌟 In the Incarnation, Jesus took on human nature with senses, allowing Him to have sensible experiences, but He never tasted things like tomatoes or pizza due to historical limitations.
05:33 🙏 The question of whether Jesus knows the taste of a tomato remains uncertain, possibly a question for the future when we meet Him.
Made with HARPA AI
Dear Father Ambrose, there is a couple of statements in the proem of "De ente et essentia" which are obscure to me. Saint Thomas says that "being and essence are what is first conceived by the intellect" (which is not evident to me in the first place); but some lines below he says that, to avoid mistakes "we must point out what is signified by the words and ".
If these two concepts are the first ones someone conceives, and if he conceives them correctly, any explanation would be unnecessary. On the other hand, if it is possible that someone misconceives them, then I would say that since they are primary concepts it would be impossible for the master to correct them in his mind, for two reasons:
a) Primary concepts are used to explain secondary or posterior concepts, but not the opposite.
b) The formation of primary concepts cannot be the result of any discourse
Further, Saint Thomas says: "Thus, to avoid making mistakes out of ignorance of them...". But how could someone ignore these concepts if it were true that they are the first that the intellect conceives?
Can you help me? What am I missing here? Perhaps the translation I have is not good.
Thanks!
JuanFlorencio
Aquinas acknowledges that being and essence are first conceived in the order of nature, as the most universal concepts the intellect apprehends of any existing thing. However, one could still misconceive their precise signification due to lack of philosophical reflection and definition. While naturally prior, they require clarification to avoid such mistakes. Aquinas aims to avoid mistakes by elucidating what he takes being and essence strictly to mean - not to generate the concepts ex nihilo, but to rectify misapprehensions. His purpose is pedagogical, to guide students already possessing the concepts to understand them adequately for metaphysical inquiry.
Prior concepts can be refined through rational discourse, as developing understanding builds on natural grasps in a non-discursive way. So I think Aquinas is acknowledging the natural, non-discursive origin of being and essence, while also saying clarification is needed to ensure one comprehends their proper importance. The project is clarificatory, not generative-aiming to build rightly upon what is first known confusedly.
This is a great channel.
We're so glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment, and may the Lord bless you!
You really surprised me 👏
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
I have a third question, Father Ambrose; this time concerning Aristotelian abstraction, according to philosophy historian Guillermo Fraile O.P.. In volume II.a of his "Historia de la Filosofía", in a section dedicated to the controversy about universals, he describes abstraction. He says that matter and form are represented in the universal concept, but none of them in particular (as they exist in the ontological individuals), but in common or universally, that is to say, as we can find them in similar individuals which belong to the same species. Then he says that a plurality of individuals is not necessary for our understanding to exert its abstracting operation, but that only one individual is enough (but when he says this, he avoids using the word "common" to describe the concept. He just says that it discards what is mutable in the particular individual).
Then, when he talks about the reality of universals, he says that they are accidents of our intellect (specifically, he says that they are qualities of our intellect).
So, here is the question: If concepts are qualities of a particular intellect (my intellect, for instance), how could they be "universals"? To be "universals" shouldn't my particular intellect be universal as well?
I would respond by drawing a distinction between the mode of being of universals and the cognitive act of abstraction that forms them. While universal concepts exist as "accidents" or qualities of the individual human intellect that abstracts them, this does not preclude them from being universal in what they represent. The intellect, though a particular faculty, has the capacity through abstraction to form concepts that go beyond the individual nature. For example, when I abstract the universal "human being" from perceiving an individual man, this concept in my mind signifies not just this particular man, but the common nature or quiddity that can be participated in by any number of individuals, whether actually existing or merely possible.
So the concept is universal in what it stands for - the same identical nature capable of multiple instantiations. Its mode of being as an accident in my intellect does not change its objective content or significative power. My intellect, though particular, can still form concepts that are universal in extension and intension. The metaphysics of abstraction allows for universals to be formed through a particular cognitive act yet universal in signification. The intellect abstracts from individuals to form concepts of common natures that transcend the singular.
God bless! Thanks, TI.
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!
While Jesus may never have eaten a pizza, He did experience all the pain in the world during His Passion, so it’s reasonable to think He did taste pineapple pizza.
excellent
Thank you for this engaging video.
I am not sure how God does not know the sensible reality but still can have complete knowledge. On what basis did he create sensible beings if he did not know how these would sense and feel? Why should knowledge from the senses be superfluous for God or undermine God's perfect knowledge? Why does all-encompassing knowledge need to eliminate lesser knowledge? Thanks.
I have this question too.
While God is purely spiritual and does not experience sensation in the finite, limited way we do as embodied creatures, his infinite intellect comprehends sensation and all other aspects of creation absolutely, both in their essence and relation to finite knowers. There is not really an elimination of lesser knowledge, but God's perfect knowledge must encompass it by exceeding it on the divine level. He understands sensation from the perspective of efficient and final causality in a way finite intellects cannot.
Nice, Catholicism is amazing.
God bless the Catholic Church.
Yes
Amazing!
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
Appreciate you taking the time to make these videos. I have another question, if you don't mind. Suppose a person was infected with the zombie virus, a la World War Z or The Walking Dead. When would be the appropriate time to administer the Last Rites? When the person succumbs to the virus and becomes "the living dead", or when the person's zombified form is killed (thus putting a full and complete end to all physical and mental activity within the person)?
I know a zombie probably wouldn't understand the whole Eucharistic process, but I think, when it comes to the consuming of body and blood, what they lack in understanding they make up for with a vigorous enthusiasm.
Take your time responding, no answer is urgently needed. Yet.
#askafriar
5:38 😂. I love the blessing: "May God keep you in His Grace." !!! I have a question: please elaborate on God making the tomato taste the way it does. On a different matter, is christianity a pacifist faith? Considering Peter's act of violence on Malchus and Jesus' reaction, how do we justify any wars (specifically the Crusades)? Could a soldier land in the argument of give unto Ceaser what is Ceasar's etc? May God keep you in His Grace. #AskAFrair
Yes, And I love Pizza
Seems to me our taste-knowing of a pizza would be God's perfect understanding of pizza under severe limitations. If that counts as a different "knowing", then nobody knows what pizza tastes like because everybody would know a different pizza, since we all have different limitations: tongue efficacy, relation to time, tomato quality, etc.
😊
Since no part of me actually touch the tomatoe, even when holding it in my hand, whatever experiences I have with it (it's color, taste and so on) are entirely created in my mind. So what actual difference is it between eating a tomatoe, watching a picture of a tomatoe, accessing a memory of eating a tomatoe or studying a tomatoe expressed as an equation?
There are important differences. For example, when you eat the tomato you assimilate part of its nutrients; and if you just study the tomato equation, you get no nutrients at all.
@@juanflorenciogonzalezmateo9803 The absorption of nutrients has nothing to do with my question though.
Alright @@michaelanderson4849. I think you need to explain why you believe your tomato experiences are created in your mind (who creates them, by the way?) because no part of you touches the tomato.
#AskAFriar How does this video relate to the rationale behind why *non-Catholics* can validly administer sacraments? Saint Cyprian and other early Fathers seem to have a pretty compelling argument that a sacrament cannot be validly administered outside the true Church, and Cyprian, it seems, plausibly distinguished between a priest who was merely morally unworthy with one who is not even a member of the Church. What is the *traditional* philosophical/theological rationale, apart from the much more modern post-Vatican II rhetoric of "imperfect communion" between Catholics, heretics, and schismatics?
I would respond by drawing a distinction between the objective validity of sacraments administered by those outside the Church, and the fullness of grace that comes from unity with Rome. St. Cyprian and other Fathers recognized the importance of the Church's authority and hierarchical structure for valid sacraments. However, they also affirm the indelible character imprinted by ordination and baptism. So while heretics and schismatics administer sacraments illicitly, the sacraments themselves are often valid due to Christ's intention and the form/matter used. For example, baptism conferred by heretics is valid, but it lacks certain spiritual effects, as the baptizer's faith is not properly ordered to the Church's head.
💥
What did aquinas think about indulgences? All i can find is the stuff his students wrote. #askafriar
You have explained it Father in a very simple manner with Good every day examples practical and common examples this Theology the Apologetics and Philosophies of the Great Philosopher and Theologians and Doctors of the Church like St Thomas Aquainas with his 12 volumes of Summa Theologica written in Latin! The present Generation and our not so young Generation the Baby Boomers Generation born in the 60s now appreciate the writings of St Thomas k! More of this videos! More Power k! Godbless us all k!
Great video and very instructive.
Related to this topic I have the following question: considering that Jesus Christ knew he had to die to redeem us, did he know exactly how this was going to happen (i.e.: crucifixion); or Did he simply know that he had to die in order to redeem us but *did not* know exactly how that was going to take place? #AskAFriar
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
Christ knew all things from eternity, including the precise manner of his Passion and death. However, in his human nature, which was fully rational yet possessed the limitations of our condition, Christ did not know the hour of his death prior to his incarnation (Mk 13:32). So as God, he knew he must redeem us through the cross; but in his human intellect and will, dependent on divine illumination, he learned of these details gradually through obedience to the Father.
#AskAFriar Did St. Thomas say that most people go to hell? Why does he think that?
#AskAFriar since God is the one who elevates our intellect to perform good actions, and since He answers prayers that are according to His will and plan of salvation, if I pray to never fall into mortal sin again in my life, can I be sure He will answer this prayer and I will never fall into mortal sin again?
The short answer is no. You will need a video length answer to keep it simple though.
I have an underdeveloped supposition that Jesus and all those who share His Resurrection will/do have all such trivial sensible knowledge by virtue of the lumen gloriae and the redounding of Goodness throughout our nature.
But what will a pizza be like then? "Eye has not seen...."
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
Am I mature enough to understand things????
#askafriar Can a Human refuse Gods Grace?
I also wonder how did Jesus, as a man, deal with physical attraction towards the young ladies around him as he grew up and became a man.
I htink that Jesus, and also Adam and Eve before the fall, were not touched by concupiscence. That is to say His needs and wants were perfectly obedient and equal to His will. Us men, we want to remain faithful to our wives, but our bodies are sensitive to the charms of other women. There is a tention, and we need to fight. We want things we know we're not supposed to have. This is a struggle that did not exist before the fall. I assume Jesus was also spared by it. But now comes another question for me: what was the nature of the temptation of Jesus in the desert?
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
@ThomisticInstitute Follow up question:
So it’s God’s knowledge that makes the tomato taste the way it does, yet his knowledge of the tomato doesn’t include the sensory knowledge of the taste. Here’s the question - does God know what it’s like for me to taste a tomato? Clearly, God doesn’t taste, but I do.
Thanks
Through his infinite intellect, God comprehends perfectly the nature and operations of everything in creation - including what it is like for a human being to taste a tomato based on our sensory faculties and mental representation of qualia. So we can say God understands tasting a tomato through you in virtue of his perfect self-knowledge and knowledge of his creation. In this way, God knows what it is like for you to taste a tomato through an analogical, not univocal, mode of understanding.
"Jesus doesn't need to taste a tomato to know it."
Yeah, but the real question is this: does God experience the phantasm of tomato taste without having to taste it?
Cute, not a question I would have thought about asking Jesus when I meet him. But I don't wonder that we will be so enamored of his face any previous questions we have in this life will be … well, we won't care about the answers perhaps. I think of this C. S. Lewis quote:
"Heaven will solve our problems, but not, I think, by showing us subtle reconciliations between all our apparently contradictory notions. The notions will all be knocked from under our feet. We shall see that there never was any problem."-- C. S. Lewis
I love that! Thanks for sharing.
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
What about the possibility of Jesus tasting something living inside a Christian?
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
I still don't get how God can be omniscient (all-knowing) if there is a whole realm of knowledge He is ignorant of.
What kind of question is this
If I tell you what is the food thatJesus eat
Peoples knowledge is not same of God
Ways of God is not our ways
Or the knowledge of ours
Distance is heaven in earth
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
#AskAFriar If animals have no immortal soul, are pets in heaven?
Of course he knows what a pizza tastes like! Otherwise his blessedness would be imperfect.😉
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
So, being able to do and know all things don't imply that you have to do and know everything through each and every way. Since by God's knowledge He creates the tomato's taste into existence, He doesn't need to taste it with a tongue to know the taste. But through His fully human nature in Jesus, God experiences what God previously didn't, like suffering and death. And so, through Jesus, God truly suffered and died, and raised. And hence also, Jesus didn't taste tomato through the human way of tasting unless after the resurrection He traveled to the Americas and took tomatoes.
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
Hey, if someone makes it to Heaven could that someone ask Jesus to actually taste Pizza. Tell him it's really worth it.
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
Well that is 6 min 23 sec of my life I won’t get back
Thank you for watching and commenting,
You won 🛍🛍
Inbox the above number on WhatsApp to redeem your Prize.🎁
This seems to imply that God does not know what English or opera sound like, or what Americans or St. Peter's look like, that he made the whole world but does not know what it looks like, which seems puzzling. I don't see why His intellectual/abstract knowledge or omniscience would exclude a kind of sensible knowledge. But also, does he know how the world looks to you or me?
As the one through whom all things were made and are sustained at every moment, God knows objectively and perfectly the essence of all languages, appearances, locations and so on. More than this, his omniscience encompasses a grasp of how the world appears to each individual intellect through their subjective viewpoint, while simultaneously holding the comprehensive, eternal perspective beyond any limitation. In this way, God's knowledge surpasses discursivity yet includes a non-sensory, intuitive understanding of all sensible and perceptual realities from creation in themselves and as related to finite intellects. His is a knowledge that far exceeds any created mode of apprehension, encompassing all things both as they truly are and how they relate to limited perspectives.
Thomistic Institute friends, I disagree, I think Jesus knew what a pizza tastes like because in the beginning when it was God, no creatures (so no creature like flavors or tomato or pizza was there yet) just the Trinity, Jesus already a God-Man even if there was a no need to be a God-Man yet, God was truly All Knowing) was already there and they knew before they even designed anything into creature (including flavors) which is mind boggling, coz' even if one can 100% see the future, you'd need events (a creature as well, a part of creation, events are partly created by creatures with wills, meaning not just cosmological events which someday coz' of tech advanced we will truly affect directly aka like a Death Star) to know the future but God knew even before.
I think Jesus knew what pizza tastes like (more so that the best pizza since that's goodness did come from God anyway, the pizza idea came from God and only God knows the perfect taste of pizza) ours is actually but a glimpse of what a perfect pizza tastes like but it's more of Jesus not using any advanced knowledge that's not for its time (I would argue He could build starships at that time but those would be inferior compared to the ease of supernatural miracles or parting of the Red Sea without any advanced pumps which would still be inferior to a miracle).
God bless.
Myths don't know what anything tastes like.
Myths know your moms a wh0re