Summa Blogologica - Question 8: The Existence of God in Things.

We are SO CLOSE to finishing the Summa Theologica's explanation on God's Essence (His Nature). I continuously labor to find fresh and easy ways to explain this without losing any of the "must know" knowledge. This all requires a couple reviews, so please don't get discouraged.

Once you get all of this it promotes a great quality in your reflections on God and you will also be able to understand Him in applications to your life. For example, once you understand that God is unchangeable, and understand that He IS love (not a selective and subjective love, but loves all of creation), we can have a deeper gratitude for His work in our lives, and less fear and worry when we sin. So stick with me!

Question 8 is next. St. Thomas answers the topic of God being "in" things. We say off hand that God is in things all the time (omnipresent), in acts of love, in mercy, etc. The explanation here can be extended to that, but is a more rudamentary in that we are saying that God is in things in basic principal. Don't get too wrapped up there. You'll see. In order to understand God's existence in things, you must understand God's existence at all. Links for that are below.

Remember the difference between an accident (when something is belongs to a thing but is not its essence, like a hat can be black and smelly) and nature (what a thing IS). So here we go:

---------------------------------------------------------

God is in all things as that of a being of an agent, and not simply as a part of their essence or as an accident. By this “agent” we mean that God is the first act (see God's existence as "first act"), and as such must be joined or present to the continuous movement of beings. If it is a being at all, it must be attached to it effect if it should continuously exist; God is the first cause. Further, we can extrapolate that God must be everywhere, omnipresent, due to this logical conclusion. The limitless cannot be limited, and the infinite cannot be finite. He is also everywhere in three ways: essence, presence, and power. Essence by agent of efficient cause (see God's existence), presence by perfect knowledge and infinite existence, power by creator of all things. These are not accidents in other things and so He alone is not particular but universal in His infinity of presence and power.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I said in the first post on God's existence that the concepts there would be used over and over. Here, they really matter. The take-away here is that God is everywhere because as in infinite being, which is a product of His existence and infiniteness, He must be everywhere. Review Question 7 for the infinity of God.

Are you having fun yet?

God Negotiates

On the first day, God created the dog and said, "Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. For this, I will give you a life span of twenty years."

The dog said, "That's a long time to be barking. How about only ten years and I'll give you back the other ten?"

And God saw that it was good.

On the second day, God created the monkey and said, "Entertain people, do tricks, and make them laugh. For this, I'll give you a twenty-year life span."

The monkey said, "Monkey tricks for twenty years? That's a pretty long time to perform. How about I give you back ten like the dog did?"

And God, again saw that it was good.

On the third day, God created the cow and said, "You must go into the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves, and give milk to support the farmer's family. For this, I will give you a life span of sixty years."

The cow said, "That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years. How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?"

And God agreed that it was good.

On the fourth day, God created humans and said, "Eat, sleep, play, marry, and enjoy your life. For this, I'll give you twenty years."

But the human said, "Only twenty years? Could you possibly give me my twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back, and the ten the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?"

"Okay," said God, "You asked for it."

So that is why for our first twenty years, we eat, sleep, play, and enjoy ourselves. For the next forty years, we slave in the sun to support our family. For the next ten years, we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren. And for the last ten years, we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone.

Life has now been explained to you.

A Prison Conversation on Evil

Special thanks to my good friend and classmate, Mike Brinda for letting me share this. IT sets out to discuss the problem of evil and moral evidence of God. Enjoy.

-----------------------------------------------------

Setting: Maximum-security prison, chow hall, two inmates seated at dinner

Characters: Chauncey (the Christian) and Dante (the Atheist)

Chauncey: You gonna eat your ice cream?

Dante: Fool, you know I sell my ice cream.

Chauncey: What about your burger?

Dante: Man, what’s wrong with you? Of course I eat my burger. Why you be trippin on my food?

Chauncey: I just want to be polite. Because when you’re done eating, I’m gonna kill you.

Dante: Man, you crazy! You been doing too many 8-balls, or something.

Chauncey: You know I don’t do drugs. I sell drugs, remember?

Dante: Yeah, well, you ain’t sold me no drugs, and I don’t owe you no money. And I never said nothin’ to nobody ‘bout no killin’ in here.

Chauncey: You said killin’ didn’t matter.

Dante: I never said that!

Chauncey: Sure you did, man. I been hearing you say it out on the yard, like forever. You be tellin’ the brothers there’s no God, and you be callin’ us fools for goin’ to church. Stuff like that.

Dante: Yeah, but that ain’t got nothin’ to do with no killin’? I never said nothin’ ‘bout killin’, you feel me? Man, I dunno what you talkin’ ‘bout.

Chauncey: You want me to explain before I kill you?

Dante: Man, you better come up with sumpin’, ‘cause I’m ‘bout ready to take this tray and smack you up side yo’ head.

Chauncey: You know I go to this class ‘bout church and stuff every week?

Dante: I heard.

Chauncey: Last week the teacher talked to us ‘bout good and evil. He told---

Dante: So?

Chauncey: He told us, like, if there’s no God, then good and evil is whatever you say it is, you feel me?

Dante: Yeah, man, I feel you. I be tellin’ you and the brothers that all along, but you don’t listen.

Chauncey: Well, like, I was feelin’ bad ‘bout all the killin’ I did on the street. But now, I’m like, maybe Dante’s right? If there’s no God, I can do what I want again. And what I want is to kill you, ‘cause you not part of my set, and killin’, killin’ don’t matter, right? You see what I’m sayin’?

Dante: Killin’ me matter to me!

Chauncey: You know I’m just messin with you. This teacher in my class, he called it a “hypothetical.” He said, first thing you gotta do is get people’s attention.

Dante: Bro, you got my attention.

Chauncey: I doubt it, man. I’d really have to go off on you to get yo’ attention.

Dante: Look, man, what you want?

Chauncey: Nothin’. I don’t want nothin’. Just think ‘bout what I said, bro--- If there don’t be no God, then there ain’t no good, ain’t no evil. It’s just what you say . . . what I say. And that, that don’t makes no sense ‘cause we already lived that way, and look where we be.

Dante: Man, that’s old news. Get some new material.

Chauncey: Maybe. Maybe ‘fore you start trippin’ and calling us fools for us goin’ to church, maybe you think a minute ‘bout me killin’ you, ‘cause killin don’t mean nothin’, right? You think that makes sense? Cause when you be saying there’s no God, that what you really be sayin’, man. Just act crazy. It don’t matter.

Dante: I’ll think about it. Now stop messin’ with me.

Guard: Chow time over. Let’s clear it out.

Praying to the Saints [edit]

Edited and updated, from February 2012:

One of the oldest beliefs of Christians is the invocation of the Saints. Others might refer to this similarly as the “cloud of witnesses” or the "Communion of Saints." Before the close of the first century this became a prominent part of what is now known as the “Apostles Creed.” This creed is the oldest creed known to the primitive church and until the recent past, most Christian denominations held close to this creed and recited it regularly. The professions of faith in the creeds are not mere religious utterance – they are claims and beliefs that the early martyrs thought worthy of death and torture. Justin Martyr is a notable figure who was known for his many letters to the Caesar at the time, defending and clearing up the claims behind the notorious creed.

But many Christians most prominently the Protestant believers will say off hand that they believe in the Communion of Saints but toss away its true meaning. Now I must not write this with the reader thinking that what I am writing is a predominately Roman Catholic belief, it is, but the true meaning I will explain and defend is a belief of the most primitive of Christianity, and even the most primitive of the people of God. The more one study’s the primitive church, the more that person will come to see the Catholic Church as it still is today, unchanged, just as promised, “and the gates of hades will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). So let us explore the true and original meaning of the “Communion of Saints.”

I could begin by quoting the voluminous quotations from the ecclesiastical writers of the early church as to the beliefs of the intercessions of the angels and dead saints in our daily prayers, but since the Catholic Church and the Protestants have a common ally in the Bible I will start there. First, the reader should consider that the Angels and Saints in heaven do not hear and listen and understand the picture as we humans of flesh and blood do here on earth. We are confined to a small spectrum of frequencies recognized by our limited senses produced and interpreted by the body. I suppose there would be no one who would think man on earth is limitless. But those residing in heaven we know from scripture have much more clarity, communion with Gods plan, and more. James Gibbons, an early american apologist, Cardinal of the Church and Archbishop of Baltimore, compares this to the bird who is caged and then is suddenly released from its confinement and one his spirit rises into the air he can now see everything and his understanding is that much better. St. Paul writes, “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor 13:12). Think of this time we live in 2012 compared to only 200 years ago. If you lived back then and had a friend who said that in a short time, we will be able to communicate from San Francisco to New York instantaneously, that person would be called a fool, and today would be called a prophet. Not only can the message be understood, but recognition of that person’s voice can be distinguished and also today we have video calling where we can see everything. How hard is it to see that sort of capability here on earth and yet be led to believe that in heaven there are greater limitations – especially when concerning the body of Christ, which we have a personal guarantee from Himself that that body could not be broken and will last forever.

The Saints and Angels do intercede on our behalf in prayer.

As early as man has known God, man has known the angels. Let us not forget that man did not reside on earth as we know it in the beginning, but Eden was in some ways a perfect earth before the fall. The point is, the angels knew us, and us them. We see very early in sacred scripture that the Patriarch Joshua on his deathbed asks “may the angel who delivered me from all evils bless these boys” (Gen 48:16). Joshua was a man who God singularly blessed and Joshua surely could have asked for God alone to bless the children, but Joshua understood that it is useful to have others intercede on ones behalf as well. The Angel Raphael says in the Book of Tobit, “Now when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and likewise whenever you used to bury the dead” (Tobit 12:12). How would the angel have presented the petition to the Lord if he could not hear the prayer? (you may also surely notice that I have included a reference from a book known as “apocryphal” but bear in mind that the six books included in a Catholic Bible are included in the Septuagint LXX which is quoted from every single New Testament writer and from the mouth of Jesus Himself – just a quick lesson on why the primitive church held close to 72 books, and not just 66 books which Martin Luther authorized according to his own doctrinal convenience). Back to the subject of Angels hearing our prayers. Our Lord spoke often about the angels. In Luke 15:10 he says that all the angels in heaven celebrate more for one sinner doing penance. But what is penance? It is an interior alteration of the heart and will. Therefore, the Saints are acquainted with the heavens – we do not know how – not only with actions and words, but with our very thoughts. I have to borrow a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet “words without thought do not reach heaven.” What did St. Paul mean when he said “we are a spectacle to the world, to the angels, and to men”? It means as clearly as we can see others, those is heaven can as well (perhaps even more so).

We have discussed Angels which are easy to hold in high regard and it is somewhat more convincing to think them supernatural to us. But our Lord Jesus also says that we who enter heaven will be like the angelic spirits (Matt 22:30). Paul even says that we will have authority over the angels and judge them (1 Cor 6:3). That blows my mind to think of. We know that here on earth the Saints can intercede for us as Abraham petitioned God to save some from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and God replied gracefully, even though there were none righteous (Genesis 38). Moses also interceded with his arms raised while fighting off the Amalekites (Exodus 17). We see all over the Book of Acts and in the example of Jesus himself that we should pray for one another, asking God for blessings, mercy, healing, forgiveness, and even resurrection.

Now I ask you, how we as sinners can pray for one another and God to grant those petitions, why it is so hard to believe that the Saints in Heaven, in whom only charity abounds, cannot lend their prayers on our behalf? Is the power of the Saint relinquished only because they have passed into eternal glory? Or does an unbeliever in the Communion of Saints believe that the Saints in heaven are so caught up in the Glory of God that they are ignorant of their brethren on earth? Paul tells us in many places (not to ignore the quote I provided earlier) that we will have many responsibilities in heaven, and we see in revelation that the bowls are the prayers of the Saints which are delivered to God (Rev 8:4). In heaven charity is triumphant, and yet how can there be charity without mindfulness of those still on earth, especially when those who are in heaven know firsthand the travail Saints on earth experience?

I’ll borrow a quote from James Cardinal Gibbons once more. “To ask the prayers of our brethren in heaven is not only conformable to Holy Scripture, but is prompted by the instincts of our nature. The Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints robs death of its terrors, while the Reformers of the sixteenth century, in denying the Communion of Saints, not only inflicted a deadly wound on the creed, but also severed the tenderest chords of the human heart. They broke asunder the holy ties that unite heaven with earth – the soul in the flesh with the soul released from the flesh. If my brother leaves me to cross the sea I believe that he continues to pray for me. And I he crosses the narrow sea of death and lands on the shores of eternity, why should he not pray for me still? What does death destroy? The body. The soul still lives and moves and has its being It thinks and wills and remembers and loves. The dross of sin and selfishness and hatred are burned by the salutary fires of contrition, and nothing remains but the pure gold of charity.”

Even though it is charity and faithful to do so, to ask Saints to pray, and to pray with the Saints, other of a more Pharisaical nature will condemn you saying, “you dishonor God with your idol worship, and your make void the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. You put the creature above the Creator.” How groundless and objection. Though I once too believed so, I was ignorant and assumed too much about the Catholic faith. To dishonor God would be to pray to Saints independent of God, but such is not the teaching or the practice of a Catholic. We know true and well that God is the source of all good gifts, and His perfect will supersedes all. So when we ask a Saint to pray for us, we beg them in them to pray through the merits of Christ, while we ask Jesus to help up though His own merits. We pray always in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But if this is all folly and useless then Jacob was wrong, and so was Paul, and what did Jesus mean? You deem it useful and pious to ask your pastor to pray for you. If St. Paul is with Jesus and Jesus can hear me can it not also be true that St. Paul can hear me? Speaking of Paul, do not forget how intact the body of Christ is after death and in this world as well. Think back to his revelation on the road to Damascus for Paul. When the spirit asked Paul why he was persecuting him, Paul asked who the voice was, and it was none other than Jesus. Now think a moment about this. Paul did not firsthand ever even meet Jesus in the flesh. Paul condemned and killed Jesus’ followers. I don’t think anyone has a better idea (and no one spoke more of it) of the meaning of the Body of Christ because of this occasion. See, Jesus is the body, and the body is in Jesus, and therefore when we persecute or are persecuted, Jesus is persecuted. How then can that body be separated in Heaven if it is also here on earth – as we know it as the Body of Christ? The answer is: it is not separated.

Remember that while the Catholic Church declares it necessary for salvation to pray to God, she merely asserts that it is “good and useful to invoke the saints” (Council of Trent, Sess. xxv). We ask them merely to pray to their God, which is our God, for the same things we ask each other here on earth to pray for.

I will not depart this topic without giving some more evidence that this is an original Christian teaching. It is no mere opinion of the modern or medieval Church or some "invented" doctrine. We can disagree about the interpretation of scripture, but I submit to you to consider what the earliest Christians recorded as common faith (which by the way is the very essence of the word Catholic, meaning “universal”). I don’t think there is a single Christian who doesn’t want to be in doctrinal communion with the apostles. The Catholic Church is the only who calls themselves “apostolic” because she claims that the teaching and the authority are handed down straight from the apostles of the NT. This is a tough one for a protestant but let me at least provide your with prominent names and quotes from the primitive church. Bear in mind that when I date these, the earliest Gospel I believed even by the most faithful scholars to be 90ad, so these writings have to be very primitive. I will let the reader decide then who nowadays is in conformance with the earliest Church fathers.

Hermas of Rome – 80ad

“But those who are weak and slothful hesitate to ask anything from the Lord. But the Lord is full of compassion and gives without fail to all to ask him. But having been strengthened by the holy angel, and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do you not ask understanding of the Lord, and receive it from him?”

St. Clement of Alexandria – 207ad

“In this way is the true Christian always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already angelic of rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of Saints standing with him.”

Early Christian Inscription – 250ad

“Blessed Sazon who aged nine years, may the true Christ receive your spirit in peace, and pray for us.”

St. Cyprian of Carthage – 250 AD

“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides pray for one another. … that if any one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go from here first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brothers and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy.”

St. Augustine – 400ad

“It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them, and to obtain a share in their merits and the assistance of their prayers.”

“For even the souls of the pious dead are not separated from the Church, which even now is the kingdom if Christ; otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the altar of God in the partaking in the Body of Christ, nor would it do any good in danger to run to baptism, that we might now pass from this life without it.” (City of God, 419ad).

Summa Blogologica - Question 7: The Infinity of God

So God is "big" right? Wrong. Big is a relative degree of size and God has no size and there is nothing relative to infinite. He has no measurement. As you're about to understand, only things that are finite can be measured.

Question 7 of the Summa Theologica deals with this topic, the Infinity of God. Its easy to understand up front, but some of the details get confusing. You will need to understand potential in relation to God. That can be found in Question 2, Existence of God.




... Try to (bear with me).











------------------------------------------------------------
God is infinite. God is not finite because things that are made of form and matter are finite. The form limits the matter, and the matter limits the form. Since God has no form or matter, He is not limited and is therefore infinite.  On the other hand, things of creation are relatively infinite as their existence is related to their potential to have an infinite number of forms. However, this is not the same infinite as that of God, who is not limited by form and matter. Bodies cannot be infinite in magnitude. Because bodies have size, they are measurable, which makes them finite. If a number has infinite potentiality, this means that a number can be divided and multiplied by any number. However, infinity itself cannot be divided and end with a real result. Infinity is limitless, endless, and is like a black hole of math and existence and power
------------------------------------------------------------

Thing that have potential = finite.
Things that are measurable = finite.
Things that have body = finite.
Things that can be divided = finite.
Finite = things are limited by all of the above.
God is not any of these by His, already discussed, nature and essence. God has no potential, He is simple (no body), and cannot be divided. God - is - infinite.

I hope that sort of simplifies things. These are necessary achievements in understanding God. If you cant understand this, we cannot move further to the "unchangeable" God, the "love" of God, and others.

Sorry Jr. Asparagus but God is not bigger than the Boogie Man. God, by His very nature, is not able to be compared to the finite, like the Boogie Man.

Larry the Cucumber would ask, "but isn't infinity bigger than finite?" No. Infinity has no measurement. Haven't you been paying attention, Larry? I can see why Bob gets annoyed with him, garsh.

JK, of course. When we say "God is bigger" we are referring to power, which He is bigger.






Do ask questions. Do read this more than once.

Go here for the Summa Question 7 text and go here for the simplified version.

Summa Blogologica - Question 6: The Goodness of God

Now we get to the good stuff. The previous Summa Blogologica posts were the roots, the foundation of the rest of the understanding of God and His nature. The rest is vital as well but now we get to learn about the love of God, the good of God, and more. All the things Christians say about God that matter.

The Summa Theologica Question 5 reasons with Goodness in General, now Question 6 answers the Goodness of God. I will include the objections given by Thomas Aquinas because they help unfold the understanding a little bit.

Here we go:

-------------------------------------------------------

Article 1 consists of whether God is good. The objections state that God cannot be good because (1) good belongs to things of order, species and order, to which God is not, and (2) God cannot be good because good is desirable but God is not desirable by all as all do not know God. The reply is that God is the first and final cause, and thus he is also the cause of goodness and all good comes from Him. Why is that? Remember in Question 5 we learned that anything that has being has goodness? Well if God created everything then all goodness comes from Him. The mode, species and order are found in the essence of the cause, God is the cause. One does not need to know God as Himself, but can have natural knowledge of divine intelligence, and also all things seek their own perfection (goodness) and subtly seek God in this way.

Article 2 consists of whether God is the supreme good. The objections state that God is not the absolute good because, (1) supreme good adds something to good, but God has nothing added to him (he is not a compound being) but is simple, (2 & 3) to say God is the supreme good is to say there are other good things, but “God alone is good”. The reply to these is that the good between God and man are not univocal, that is, they are not the same thing. As creatures, we only “have” this good as imparted from the creator and is therefore limited, but God is not. God is the good - it is His very nature to be good, and not have good like us.

Article 3 consists of whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone. We know that, as all good comes from God, we must remember that God is His essence and anything coming from His emanation into thing is only possesses that thing which in this case is goodness; we have good, God is good.

Article 4 consist of whether all things are good by the divine goodness. God caused the goodness in things, and creatures are therefore good by reason of the divine goodness.

----------------------------------------------------------

Simple? What you need to know is in Articles 1, 3 and 4. What we must understand is essence/nature. For lack of easier terms, essence is nature, and they are what a thing is. We are human and so we have a human nature which has attributes. God does not have a nature, He is His nature. That is everything in understanding God. Because He is the cause of things, and nothing causes Him, He just is - period. .

Therefore, in the case of Goodness, we know that God does not have goodness, but is Goodness. The Goodness in the world is an effect of His act and will.

God - Is - Good . Its not just a nice thing we say to complement Him Questions? Comments? Gripes?

Summa Blogologica - Question 5: Goodness in General

So last blog post in Summa Question 4, towards the end I said something about the link to the Summa itself and then had a link for the summarized version. Anyone see the irony here? The Summa is short for summary. It was written by Aquinas to be a summary of the Christian faith. It ended up being, still, a very high level and difficult read. And we think often we are more intellectual than the best of antiquity. I seriously disagree. Not to say we are not advanced thinkers, but on the topics of basic philosophy and universal concepts, we fall so short of the genius of these.

With that, next is Question 5, Goodness in General. What is good at all?  Eh, who knows. Well, you’re about to know! Because Aquinas knows and now I know, I want you to know! Ya know? If you haven't done so already, make sure you have a basic understanding of perfections: do that in Question 4.

Here. We. Go:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Goodness comes from a desire for a thing’s perfection, and all things that are actual have perfection of some degree. Anything that really exists has this perfection and so "being"  does not differ from goodness in idea. In other words, we can know of a thing without knowing it is good. So there is not a REAL distinction, but an IDEAL distinction.

“Idea” is prior to a thing because we form a word in our mind which corresponds to a thing we intend it to be. We only discover goodness after we discover the thing and determine it to be good. In other words, we know of the being before we know that it is good at all.

Every being, as being is good. Because all things are in some way perfect or contain some perfection, and perfection is desirable, and perfection is what we find as goodness, all beings are good. Being = some perfection = goodness .

Goodness is the aspect of final cause because, as discussed in previously, goodness is in things which have perfection. Perfections are desirable and so are being sought out which is akin to finality “in-view” and so goodness has the aspect of final cause as opposed to other causes.

As said before, anything can be good so long that it is perfect because in this way it is desired. This goodness is ordered in a thing’s form and furthermore, a thing’s form in a things species. When a number, or given part of form is given to or added to this form, the species is changed; hence this follows as an order. Thus, goodness does consist of mode, species, and order.

Goodness is divided among either of the three but they are all different thing in their relativity to the appetite for the thing. If a thing tends toward another it is useful; if a thing for its own sake achieves its appetite completely, that thing is virtuous; but that thing which achieves its appetite to respite or rest, that thing is pleasant.   

------------------------------------------------------------------

What a blast right? The keys are in knowing what Goodness is and how virtue is thus defined. This is different from fundamental moral theology and is only discussing the goodness of THINGS, not ACTS  of the will.

 

 

Bear that in mind.

 

 

 

Think now on God calling the created world "very good" in Genesis 1:31. More like, "completion in view" than, "wow, I did a fantastic job!"

As always, for more reading on Question 5, go here for the Summa and go here for the summarized Summa.

Next we will look at the goodness of/in God.