I love how Dr Minerd said the “Blossom of Charity”, to me it sounds like he’s reading Fr. Gilles Emery book “Trinitarian theology in Aquinas”, since Fr. Emery describes the Paraclete with the same terms 😊
@@CatholicDwong Christ is baptized! In the Jordan! I try to do so at least-being a parent (and from a blue collar family who blessedly reminds me of my roots :-)) helps to develop this skill! Funny enough, that's something I picked up somewhere else. I've read that text some time ago, but I think I picked this up from Gardeil or Garrigou-Lagrange. But, Fr. Emery is good company here too. :-) (Probably the french épanouissement in the back of my mind...)
Christ is baptized! In the Jordan! Honored and humbled to be part of God's working of grace in your life! Many blessings to you this season of the theophany / epiphany!
As Matthew said, it is a privilege to be of any assistance in one's intellectual journey, and also humbling to be told this. So thank you and God bless.
@@gavenkerr690 Dr. Gaven, if you don’t mind I do have a question I would’ve tossed your way had I not missed the livestream. My question is as follows: Since the incarnation of Christ is brought about in the Suppositum such that there is only 1 subject, namely the second Person of the Trinity, I am curious as to what kind of relation are we to think of when someone, such as Peter the Apostle, has a real relationship with the Incarnate word? It seems to me that the Incarnate Word would be bearing two relations in that case. The first relation would be purely logical from Christ Divine Nature perspective. However, doesn’t the human nature undergo a real actuality when He knows Peter? I know Thomas would posit that Christ gains experiential knowledge in his relationships which is perhaps already answering my question. It seems, if what I have written above is true, then when it comes to the Person of the Word, the Person has a real relation with creation in virtue of the human nature that informs that relation. However, when contemplating each nature as distinct and not the suppositum, the divine nature remains a logical relation and the human nature is where the real relation is. Is this correct? If so, I can fully embrace why Pope Benedict says that Christ knows each of us with a “human heart.” Love you work. Praise to God that we have platforms where I can listen to the likes of you and Dr Minerd. Blessings,
@@matthewminerd7693 Blessings Matthew! If you have a second to peek at my question to Gaven I would enjoy your insight as well! My engagement with you about the “2 esses” of Christ in the scotistic vs Thomistic conception was incredibly fruitful.
@@matthewminerd7693 Oh, and Christ is baptized in the Jordan indeed!! Thanks be to God for that descending that was instrumental in causing our ascension!
This is the first time I’ve ever really listened to a philosophical discussion like this. It was incredible though I was barely hanging on at a few points throughout the talk. Where could I turn in order to learn more? Are there other UA-cam channels or books that could instruct a novice like me?
@@intellectualcatholicism Thank you! It’ll be the next book that I read. I’d really appreciate more videos like this one and will look back in your upload history to see what’s available!
@@CatholicDwong Christ is baptized! In the Jordan! What a blessing to be with Suan, Gaven, and Christopher! I wish I could have stayed around-I was listening-but I had to take care of my 2 year old!
Lol, so true. I was talking to my priest and he agrees that in arguments, Thomists tend to reduce their opponents position to heresy. Reductio ad haeresis 😂
Hello. I recently read _That All Shall Be Saved_ by David Bentley Hart. In my opinion, some of the philosophical arguments he raises in it are powerful and merit a thorough Catholic response. So, my question to you would be, will you be addressing his book, or even have Dr. Hart on the show for discussion? That would be very interesting. May God bless you.
For me at least, the Scriptural arguments for the eternity of hell against universalism outweigh any philosophical arguments for universalism. But I agree that some Catholic Apologists should thoroughly address Hart's material, as he is clever.
@@CatholicDwong I affirm whatever the Church teaches, but Hart presents 4 arguments against infernalism in his book, one of which is scriptural. It is based on his translation of the New Testament, published by Yale.
@@isaacOfNiniveh That translation makes some serious errors as noted by Protestant theologian Dr. Michael McclyMond. Some of the philosophical arguments against Dr. Hart's position have been addressed by Dr. Edward Feser.
@@computationaltheist7267 I read Dr. Feser's review of Dr. Hart's book, which is published in Catholic Herald. I was very unimpressed by it, as some of Feser's remarks seemed to imply that he didn't carefully read the book. The article is behind a paywall, but from what I remember, he addressed Hart's arguments in a very brief and shallow manner, whereas those of us who have read the book know that they are philosophically very challenging and merit more than a short paragraph. If we Catholics are ignoring them, we are only doing a disservice to ourselves, as such behavior shows that we really don't have an adequate response. The follow-up is Hart and Feser trash-talking each other on their respective blogs (Hart being angered by Feser's review initiated the back-and-forth), which is quite removed from the topic of interest and therefore probably irrelevant. P.S. I won't address scriptural arguments for or against universalism, because I'm entirely unqualified in the area of New Testament textual criticism.
@@isaacOfNiniveh Perhaps Dr. Feser didn’t have time to write a full review because he had other priorities. In any case, I find it ironic that you say Dr. Feser’s critique was shallow when Dr. Hart engaged in some of the most vicious insults for his opponents and their God. If Dr. Feser was correct,I would say that Dr. Hart deserved it. Dr. Feser is correct in noting that if Jesus’ words on eternal hell can mean something else, then the same goes for an eternal heaven. Dr. Hart says that any translation of eternal hell is a mistranslation but why can’t the same be applied to heaven. I didn’t find Dr. Hart’s argument that any creature that disobeys God is irrational to be persuasive. If that leaves out culpability, then God is irrational in sending one to hell in the first place. It also makes God be a monster. How can a God who knew that everyone is saved tell his saints to evangelize? Dr. Hart never deals with those arguments and just continues with his ad hominem. Dr. Hart even admits that some of his views are not Christian I am also unqualified to make the scriptural arguments since I don’t specialize in NT Greek or anything else. However, other scholars like McClymond and N T Wright have noted Hart’s mistakes in his rendering of the words.
If I remember correctly, Dr. Gaven Kerr said that him and some graduate students were going to study Palamism in depth in the upcoming year to engage with it.
@@iteadthomam Yip, some students and I will be doing an in-depth study of Bradshaw's East and West, so I will hopefully be able to give a more informed opinion having done that :D
Though this isn’t related to the topic of impassability, while listening, the question of God’s presence arose in my mind. Forgive me if I use any terms incorrectly. The Baltimore Catechism says that God is everywhere. So, is He present everywhere in a substantial way or is he simply present everywhere due to the dependence that all of creation has on His actuality. I hope that my question makes sense and I pray that this isn’t something that I should have already known… 😅
Christ is baptized! This is a great question! There really are 3 different kinds of presence of God to the world: - Through causality (="Presence of immensity" as it is called by scholastics), he is wholly present to every being in every one of its activities. - Presence as intimate friend (= presence in knowledge and love through grace); in this way, his causal presence blossoms forth in He Himself, in his Supernatural Triune mystery being the object of our knowledge and love. - Personal Hypostatic Presence (in the unique case of Christ); here we have the case of the Word in Christ, a presence that is operatively continued through his agency in the sacraments, the "separated instruments" of His divinity. Let me know if you need more followup!
@@matthewminerd7693 Wow, I did not know that there were three distinctions! Thank you. Do you mind elaborating more on the presence of immensity? I believe the later two forms of presence that you mentioned are pretty straightforward. What I don’t understand about the first is how he’s present in my activity. Not that I believe he isn’t present, rather, I don’t know how. Is the amount of presence effected by the act itself? For instance, I could see how God is present in a charitable act. Moreover it seems rational that He would be more present in the charitable act vs and evil act. Is the presence simply reduced to the fact that every act of mine or my being is completely dependent upon God? Hope you can comprehend where I’m going with all of that. I am grateful for you sharing your valuable time and knowledge with me!
@@waznyf Christ is baptized! Apologies for the delay, Francis! This is actually _precisely_ why the presence of immensity is different. It is not an inter-personal presence but, rather, merely the presence of cause to effect. Now, within the power of the effect that is man, there is the power (through natural knowledge and love) to turn back to this source, through the mediacy of created effects. But the relationship that is thus brought about is not that of true _friendship_ that one finds in the presence of grace. (Note, that in the case of grace, too, there is a presence of immensity-God creating grace in the soul. But, this presence buds forth in full perfection in that to which it adapts the soul, namely, knowledge and love through the activity of the theological virtues.) I think the best way to think of it is in this sense: Immensity: presence of cause as cause to effect ("presence as PRINCIPLE") "Intentional" presence: as the the OBJECT of knowledge and love. [In a limited sense, this perhaps can be said of natural knowledge, but it is different from that in the supernatural order, which is infinitely more intimate] Presence "subjectively" (in the technical sense of the term, giving the HYPOSTASIS to the Incarnate Word). Does this help? Peace, Matthew
@@matthewminerd7693 What a wonderful response, and yes, it was very helpful! This discussion as well as the video about Jacques Maritain that you contributed to on R&T has inspired me to definitely study philosophy as a layman. Having never explored this area of study, might you be able to suggest some introductory material that could get me kick started? Sincerely, Francis W.
Christ is baptized! In the Jordan! They discerned a Josephite marriage when they became Catholic. I do think He had a unique vocation to his philosophical work in service of the Church. Much grace to you this season of theophany / epiphany (depending on your ritual church)!
Dr Minerd’s ability to connect everyday experiences to his philosophy is impressive. Love his random short stories
I love how Dr Minerd said the “Blossom of Charity”, to me it sounds like he’s reading Fr. Gilles Emery book “Trinitarian theology in Aquinas”, since Fr. Emery describes the Paraclete with the same terms 😊
@@CatholicDwong Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
I try to do so at least-being a parent (and from a blue collar family who blessedly reminds me of my roots :-)) helps to develop this skill!
Funny enough, that's something I picked up somewhere else. I've read that text some time ago, but I think I picked this up from Gardeil or Garrigou-Lagrange. But, Fr. Emery is good company here too. :-)
(Probably the french épanouissement in the back of my mind...)
What?!!! How did I miss this livestream!? Dr Minerd and Dr Kerr have been heavily influential in my journey. This is going to be a great episode.
Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
Honored and humbled to be part of God's working of grace in your life! Many blessings to you this season of the theophany / epiphany!
As Matthew said, it is a privilege to be of any assistance in one's intellectual journey, and also humbling to be told this. So thank you and God bless.
@@gavenkerr690 Dr. Gaven, if you don’t mind I do have a question I would’ve tossed your way had I not missed the livestream. My question is as follows:
Since the incarnation of Christ is brought about in the Suppositum such that there is only 1 subject, namely the second Person of the Trinity, I am curious as to what kind of relation are we to think of when someone, such as Peter the Apostle, has a real relationship with the Incarnate word?
It seems to me that the Incarnate Word would be bearing two relations in that case. The first relation would be purely logical from Christ Divine Nature perspective. However, doesn’t the human nature undergo a real actuality when He knows Peter? I know Thomas would posit that Christ gains experiential knowledge in his relationships which is perhaps already answering my question.
It seems, if what I have written above is true, then when it comes to the Person of the Word, the Person has a real relation with creation in virtue of the human nature that informs that relation. However, when contemplating each nature as distinct and not the suppositum, the divine nature remains a logical relation and the human nature is where the real relation is. Is this correct? If so, I can fully embrace why Pope Benedict says that Christ knows each of us with a “human heart.” Love you work. Praise to God that we have platforms where I can listen to the likes of you and Dr Minerd.
Blessings,
@@matthewminerd7693 Blessings Matthew!
If you have a second to peek at my question to Gaven I would enjoy your insight as well! My engagement with you about the “2 esses” of Christ in the scotistic vs Thomistic conception was incredibly fruitful.
@@matthewminerd7693 Oh, and Christ is baptized in the Jordan indeed!! Thanks be to God for that descending that was instrumental in causing our ascension!
This was mind blowing to me. Never heard this topic talked like this before and loved listening to the opening speaker
Christ is baptized!
Glad you enjoyed it! Dr. Kerr was great!
Sipping my morning joe, so enjoy sitting in on your conversation.
Christ is baptized!
Glad you enjoyed it. It was a great conversation! Many blessings to you and yours!
Incredible conversation!! One of the best on UA-cam.
Christ is baptized!
Glad that you enjoyed it! Many blessings to you and yours!
This is the first time I’ve ever really listened to a philosophical discussion like this. It was incredible though I was barely hanging on at a few points throughout the talk. Where could I turn in order to learn more?
Are there other UA-cam channels or books that could instruct a novice like me?
Thanks, Frank! I good place to start might be "Scholastic Metaphysics" by Edward Feser.
@@intellectualcatholicism Thank you! It’ll be the next book that I read. I’d really appreciate more videos like this one and will look back in your upload history to see what’s available!
4 geniuses in one video. God bless UA-cam
They are only missing Pat Flynn
@@CatholicDwong Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
What a blessing to be with Suan, Gaven, and Christopher! I wish I could have stayed around-I was listening-but I had to take care of my 2 year old!
Wow this is a group of some of the best figures in contemporary Thomism
Christ is baptized!
What a company to be numbered among! I'm glad that you found our conversation edifying! It was a great time together!
really enjoyed this, it was very entertaining
Christ is baptized!
Glad you enjoyed it. It was a great conversation! Many blessings to you and yours!
Lol, so true. I was talking to my priest and he agrees that in arguments, Thomists tend to reduce their opponents position to heresy. Reductio ad haeresis 😂
Ha! Yes, yes, this is a real risk! But, sometimes, one needs to show how a theological conclusion could lead to rather bad ends....!
Hello. I recently read _That All Shall Be Saved_ by David Bentley Hart. In my opinion, some of the philosophical arguments he raises in it are powerful and merit a thorough Catholic response. So, my question to you would be, will you be addressing his book, or even have Dr. Hart on the show for discussion? That would be very interesting.
May God bless you.
For me at least, the Scriptural arguments for the eternity of hell against universalism outweigh any philosophical arguments for universalism. But I agree that some Catholic Apologists should thoroughly address Hart's material, as he is clever.
@@CatholicDwong I affirm whatever the Church teaches, but Hart presents 4 arguments against infernalism in his book, one of which is scriptural. It is based on his translation of the New Testament, published by Yale.
@@isaacOfNiniveh That translation makes some serious errors as noted by Protestant theologian Dr. Michael McclyMond. Some of the philosophical arguments against Dr. Hart's position have been addressed by Dr. Edward Feser.
@@computationaltheist7267 I read Dr. Feser's review of Dr. Hart's book, which is published in Catholic Herald. I was very unimpressed by it, as some of Feser's remarks seemed to imply that he didn't carefully read the book. The article is behind a paywall, but from what I remember, he addressed Hart's arguments in a very brief and shallow manner, whereas those of us who have read the book know that they are philosophically very challenging and merit more than a short paragraph. If we Catholics are ignoring them, we are only doing a disservice to ourselves, as such behavior shows that we really don't have an adequate response.
The follow-up is Hart and Feser trash-talking each other on their respective blogs (Hart being angered by Feser's review initiated the back-and-forth), which is quite removed from the topic of interest and therefore probably irrelevant.
P.S. I won't address scriptural arguments for or against universalism, because I'm entirely unqualified in the area of New Testament textual criticism.
@@isaacOfNiniveh Perhaps Dr. Feser didn’t have time to write a full review because he had other priorities. In any case, I find it ironic that you say Dr. Feser’s critique was shallow when Dr. Hart engaged in some of the most vicious insults for his opponents and their God. If Dr. Feser was correct,I would say that Dr. Hart deserved it. Dr. Feser is correct in noting that if Jesus’ words on eternal hell can mean something else, then the same goes for an eternal heaven. Dr. Hart says that any translation of eternal hell is a mistranslation but why can’t the same be applied to heaven. I didn’t find Dr. Hart’s argument that any creature that disobeys God is irrational to be persuasive. If that leaves out culpability, then God is irrational in sending one to hell in the first place. It also makes God be a monster. How can a God who knew that everyone is saved tell his saints to evangelize? Dr. Hart never deals with those arguments and just continues with his ad hominem. Dr. Hart even admits that some of his views are not Christian
I am also unqualified to make the scriptural arguments since I don’t specialize in NT Greek or anything else. However, other scholars like McClymond and N T Wright have noted Hart’s mistakes in his rendering of the words.
Excellent show! Is there any chance for a Bradshaw-Kerr discussion? I'd love to hear Dr. Kerr criticism of Palamism.
If I remember correctly, Dr. Gaven Kerr said that him and some graduate students were going to study Palamism in depth in the upcoming year to engage with it.
@@CatholicDwong Great. He said he would have issues with a real metaphysical distinction between God and his attributes in an interview on R&T.
@@iteadthomam Yip, some students and I will be doing an in-depth study of Bradshaw's East and West, so I will hopefully be able to give a more informed opinion having done that :D
@@gavenkerr690 Great! I'm a big fan btw, I love your work. You've pretty much addressed every objection (to Thomism) I had in mind.
@@iteadthomam Thank you, that's very kind. I'm sure we'll come across more objections as time goes on.
Though this isn’t related to the topic of impassability, while listening, the question of God’s presence arose in my mind. Forgive me if I use any terms incorrectly.
The Baltimore Catechism says that God is everywhere. So, is He present everywhere in a substantial way or is he simply present everywhere due to the dependence that all of creation has on His actuality.
I hope that my question makes sense and I pray that this isn’t something that I should have already known… 😅
Christ is baptized!
This is a great question!
There really are 3 different kinds of presence of God to the world:
- Through causality (="Presence of immensity" as it is called by scholastics), he is wholly present to every being in every one of its activities.
- Presence as intimate friend (= presence in knowledge and love through grace); in this way, his causal presence blossoms forth in He Himself, in his Supernatural Triune mystery being the object of our knowledge and love.
- Personal Hypostatic Presence (in the unique case of Christ); here we have the case of the Word in Christ, a presence that is operatively continued through his agency in the sacraments, the "separated instruments" of His divinity.
Let me know if you need more followup!
@@matthewminerd7693 Wow, I did not know that there were three distinctions! Thank you.
Do you mind elaborating more on the presence of immensity? I believe the later two forms of presence that you mentioned are pretty straightforward.
What I don’t understand about the first is how he’s present in my activity. Not that I believe he isn’t present, rather, I don’t know how. Is the amount of presence effected by the act itself? For instance, I could see how God is present in a charitable act. Moreover it seems rational that He would be more present in the charitable act vs and evil act.
Is the presence simply reduced to the fact that every act of mine or my being is completely dependent upon God?
Hope you can comprehend where I’m going with all of that. I am grateful for you sharing your valuable time and knowledge with me!
@@waznyf Christ is baptized!
Apologies for the delay, Francis!
This is actually _precisely_ why the presence of immensity is different. It is not an inter-personal presence but, rather, merely the presence of cause to effect. Now, within the power of the effect that is man, there is the power (through natural knowledge and love) to turn back to this source, through the mediacy of created effects. But the relationship that is thus brought about is not that of true _friendship_ that one finds in the presence of grace. (Note, that in the case of grace, too, there is a presence of immensity-God creating grace in the soul. But, this presence buds forth in full perfection in that to which it adapts the soul, namely, knowledge and love through the activity of the theological virtues.)
I think the best way to think of it is in this sense:
Immensity: presence of cause as cause to effect ("presence as PRINCIPLE")
"Intentional" presence: as the the OBJECT of knowledge and love. [In a limited sense, this perhaps can be said of natural knowledge, but it is different from that in the supernatural order, which is infinitely more intimate]
Presence "subjectively" (in the technical sense of the term, giving the HYPOSTASIS to the Incarnate Word).
Does this help?
Peace,
Matthew
@@matthewminerd7693 What a wonderful response, and yes, it was very helpful!
This discussion as well as the video about Jacques Maritain that you contributed to on R&T has inspired me to definitely study philosophy as a layman.
Having never explored this area of study, might you be able to suggest some introductory material that could get me kick started?
Sincerely,
Francis W.
Matthew how come Jacques and Raïssa Maritain didn't have kids?
Christ is baptized! In the Jordan!
They discerned a Josephite marriage when they became Catholic. I do think He had a unique vocation to his philosophical work in service of the Church.
Much grace to you this season of theophany / epiphany (depending on your ritual church)!