| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Washed, Sanctified and Justified in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
How is Jesus explaining why Mary is His mother?
Hi again,
You ask:
@De Maria, I don't understand this, how is Jesus explaining why Mary is His mother by those statements?
For that, we have to go back to Luke 1:38;45
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
Note that St. Luke, writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, depicts Mary as faithfully doing whatever God wills of her.
If then, we read Luke 11:27-28 and understand Jesus to be somehow condemning or denigrating Mary as an unfaithful woman who has not done His Father's will, as the Protestants do, then we are making Jesus contradict the Holy Word of God. And that is impossible. God does not contradict Himself.
Therefore, we have to do what Protestants call to "correlate the Scriptures." Jesus is saying that only the most faithful of people may be related to Him. We can therefore conclude that this is the reason why Mary has the closest relationship to Him. Because she is the most faithful of any creature which God put on this earth. No human has a closer relationship to Jesus than the woman who carried Him in her womb for 9 months and gave Him birth and then nursed Him and raised Him to adult age. No one loves Him more than His mother.
Does that make sense?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 3, article 6
Article 6. Whether in God there are any accidents?
*Accidents - He's not talking about mistakes. Although, in God, there are no mistakes either. St. Thomas is referring to nonessential properties. Accidents are nonessentials. Such as, it is not not essential for the definition of human that they be American. Therefore, American is a nonessential property of some humans.
Since we are Catholic, we believe that having a rational soul is essential to being a human. I believe, that is possibly the only essential that is recognized for a human.
Since we are Catholic, we believe that having a rational soul is essential to being a human. I believe, that is possibly the only essential that is recognized for a human.
So, we could paraphrase this to say:
Whether all God's properties are essential to His Being God?
Objection 1. It seems that there are accidents in God. For substance can not be an accident, as Aristotle says (Phys. i). Therefore that which is an accident in one, cannot, in another, be a substance. Thus it is proved that heat cannot be the substantial form of fire, because it is an accident in other things. But wisdom, virtue, and the like, which are accidents in us, are attributes of God. Therefore in God there are accidents.
The first objection says that God's properties are nonessential because they are shared by many. Thus, God is wise. But so are some men. Therefore, we can't say that God is God because He is wise.
Objection 2. Further, in every genus there is a first principle. But there are many "genera" of accidents. If, therefore, the primal members of these genera are not in God, there will be many primal beings other than God--which is absurd.
The second objection says that nonessential properties abound and are shared by many creatures. But all creatures can be traced to a first of its kind. If there are many Firsts, then there are many Gods. And this is not true.
*That objection, sort of disproves itself, in my opinion.
On the contrary, Every accident is in a subject. But God cannot be a subject, for "no simple form can be a subject", as Boethius says (De Trin.). Therefore in God there cannot be any accident.
To understand this, we must define the word, "subject". Subject means many things but the meaning in context of this statement is, "material or substance".
From Merriam Webster's online dictionary:
Objection 1. It seems that there are accidents in God. For substance can not be an accident, as Aristotle says (Phys. i). Therefore that which is an accident in one, cannot, in another, be a substance. Thus it is proved that heat cannot be the substantial form of fire, because it is an accident in other things. But wisdom, virtue, and the like, which are accidents in us, are attributes of God. Therefore in God there are accidents.The first objection says that God's properties are nonessential because they are shared by many. Thus, God is wise. But so are some men. Therefore, we can't say that God is God because He is wise.
Objection 2. Further, in every genus there is a first principle. But there are many "genera" of accidents. If, therefore, the primal members of these genera are not in God, there will be many primal beings other than God--which is absurd.The second objection says that nonessential properties abound and are shared by many creatures. But all creatures can be traced to a first of its kind. If there are many Firsts, then there are many Gods. And this is not true.
*That objection, sort of disproves itself, in my opinion.
On the contrary, Every accident is in a subject. But God cannot be a subject, for "no simple form can be a subject", as Boethius says (De Trin.). Therefore in God there cannot be any accident.To understand this, we must define the word, "subject". Subject means many things but the meaning in context of this statement is, "material or substance".
From Merriam Webster's online dictionary:
Full Definition of SUBJECT
1
: one that is placed under authority or control: as
a : vassal
b (1) : one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law (2) : one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state
2
a : that of which a quality, attribute, or relation may be affirmed or in which it may inhere
b : substratum; especially : material or essential substance....
1
: one that is placed under authority or control: as
a : vassal
b (1) : one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law (2) : one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state
2
a : that of which a quality, attribute, or relation may be affirmed or in which it may inhere
b : substratum; especially : material or essential substance....
We know, from Question 3, Article 2, that God is not a material nor a substance. So, St. Thomas counters with the fact that only materials or substances have nonessential properties. Therefore, God can not have those.
I answer that, From all we have said, it is clear there can be no accident in God.
Therefore, God can not have nonessential properties.
First, because a subject is compared to its accidents as potentiality to actuality; for a subject is in some sense made actual by its accidents. But there can be no potentiality in God, as was shown (2, 3).
First, substances are, in a manner of speaking, defined by their nonessential properties. Thus, a human being has 10 fingers and toes. But so do most apes.
But God does not have nonessential properties by which He might be defined. God is Divine. Only God is Divine. God is immortal. Only God is immortal. God is all knowing. Only God is all knowing. These are all ESSENTIAL properties of God.
Secondly, because God is His own existence; and as Boethius says (Hebdom.), although every essence may have something superadded to it, this cannot apply to absolute being: thus a heated substance can have something extraneous to heat added to it, as whiteness, nevertheless absolute heat can have nothing else than heat.
God is absolute. Nothing can be added to Him because He needs nothing and possesses everything.
Thirdly, because what is essential is prior to what is accidental. Whence as God is absolute primal being, there can be in Him nothing accidental. Neither can He have any essential accidents (as the capability of laughing is an essential accident of man), because such accidents are caused by the constituent principles of the subject. Now there can be nothing caused in God, since He is the first cause. Hence it follows that there is no accident in God.
God is essential to all creation. Therefore, He is the First Cause of all things in creation. Therefore, those things which are nonessentials in creatures are caused by God's essential nature. Nothing can be caused in God, but God is the cause of all things.
Reply to Objection 1. Virtue and wisdom are not predicated of God and of us univocally. Hence it does not follow that there are accidents in God as there are in us.
The properties which we share in common with God are nonessentials in us. But they are essentials in God.
Reply to Objection 2. Since substance is prior to its accidents, the principles of accidents are reducible to the principles of the substance as to that which is prior; although God is not first as if contained in the genus of substance; yet He is first in respect to all being, outside of every genus.
I don't think he means, "prior in time". I think he means, "in order of importance". Thus, men (substance) have ten fingers and toes (accidents). But, if a man does not have ten fingers and toes, he is not declassified to another species or substance.
But God is not a substance. So, He has no accidents and this objection does not apply to God.
We know, from Question 3, Article 2, that God is not a material nor a substance. So, St. Thomas counters with the fact that only materials or substances have nonessential properties. Therefore, God can not have those.
I answer that, From all we have said, it is clear there can be no accident in God.Therefore, God can not have nonessential properties.
First, because a subject is compared to its accidents as potentiality to actuality; for a subject is in some sense made actual by its accidents. But there can be no potentiality in God, as was shown (2, 3).First, substances are, in a manner of speaking, defined by their nonessential properties. Thus, a human being has 10 fingers and toes. But so do most apes.
But God does not have nonessential properties by which He might be defined. God is Divine. Only God is Divine. God is immortal. Only God is immortal. God is all knowing. Only God is all knowing. These are all ESSENTIAL properties of God.
Secondly, because God is His own existence; and as Boethius says (Hebdom.), although every essence may have something superadded to it, this cannot apply to absolute being: thus a heated substance can have something extraneous to heat added to it, as whiteness, nevertheless absolute heat can have nothing else than heat.God is absolute. Nothing can be added to Him because He needs nothing and possesses everything.
Thirdly, because what is essential is prior to what is accidental. Whence as God is absolute primal being, there can be in Him nothing accidental. Neither can He have any essential accidents (as the capability of laughing is an essential accident of man), because such accidents are caused by the constituent principles of the subject. Now there can be nothing caused in God, since He is the first cause. Hence it follows that there is no accident in God.God is essential to all creation. Therefore, He is the First Cause of all things in creation. Therefore, those things which are nonessentials in creatures are caused by God's essential nature. Nothing can be caused in God, but God is the cause of all things.
Reply to Objection 1. Virtue and wisdom are not predicated of God and of us univocally. Hence it does not follow that there are accidents in God as there are in us.The properties which we share in common with God are nonessentials in us. But they are essentials in God.
Reply to Objection 2. Since substance is prior to its accidents, the principles of accidents are reducible to the principles of the substance as to that which is prior; although God is not first as if contained in the genus of substance; yet He is first in respect to all being, outside of every genus.I don't think he means, "prior in time". I think he means, "in order of importance". Thus, men (substance) have ten fingers and toes (accidents). But, if a man does not have ten fingers and toes, he is not declassified to another species or substance.
But God is not a substance. So, He has no accidents and this objection does not apply to God.
News about the Walk for Life
January 25, 2016
The past few days have been such an exciting time in the pro-life movement! In spite of the weather on the East Coast, the March for Life was a great success. Those that were able to attend were a powerful witness to life as were all of the events surrounding the March. After the March in DC, I flew out West to the Walk for Life in San Francisco for more great events commemorating the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Please keep an eye out at PriestsForLife.org where we have some photos posted and will continue to post photos and video throughout the week.
Recently, I had the following op-eds published for the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. I invite you to read and comment on them and also share them on your own social media accounts, email lists etc. This is a simple action you can take to help spread the pro-life message and counter any anti-life comments that others may have submitted. Below the op-eds I have provided links to some good news articles about the March.
Finally, please see our media schedule for the week here.
Two different crowds, one dream (WashingtonTimes.com, January 21, 2016)
Those of us who were part of the diverse and large congregation that filled the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on the Martin Luther King holiday Monday for the King Center’s 48th annual Commemorative Service were not weary at the end of a service that lasted more than four and a half hours. On the contrary, we were energized, as I have been after each of these services that I’ve attended for over a decade…MORE
The March for Life and the 2016 election (FoxNews.com, January 21, 2016)
This week, hundreds of thousands of Americans will participate in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. as well as in other marches on the West Coast and in cities, town and villages everywhere in between. This flood of concerned citizens represents a deeply unsettled issue in our country: the lives of children in their first nine months are not protected by law…MORE
Uncanny Convergence: MLK Jr., the March for Life and Christian Unity (Aleteia.org, January 22, 2016)
Each January, three observances converge that reinforce each other and summon the Christian world to work together against injustice. January 15 is the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and on or around that day we observe a national holiday in his honor. A week later, on January 22, we recall the tragic decision made that day in 1973 by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, unleashing a policy of abortion on demand. On or around January 22, large rallies and marches for life are held from coast to coast. And from January 18 to 25 each year, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is observed….MORE
The March for Life and Jane Roe (PewSitter.com, January 22, 2016)
The reason the national March for Life in Washington DC is on January 22, this Friday, is because that is the date of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton Supreme Court decisions in 1973 permitting abortion throughout pregnancy. Much will be said and debated about these decisions, their legal ramifications, how the Court has weakened them over the years, and what the prospects are for the future…MORE
Pro-Woman is Pro-Life, and Pro-Life is Pro-Woman (National Catholic Register, January 22, 2016)
Almost a year ago, I had the honor of meeting a young woman named Andrea. Months earlier, on learning she was pregnant, she had taken the first drug in the RU-486 abortion regimen, and immediately regretted her decision. Racing against the clock, she found a doctor about an hour away from her home in New Jersey who would immediately begin a reversal protocol that stops the starvation of the baby. Her son Gabriel was born healthy on Dec. 31, 2014…MORE
The March for Life and Youth (Breitbart.com, January 21, 2016)
One of the most frequently heard observations about the annual March for Life, to take place again this Friday in Washington, D.C., is that it consists mostly of young people. And this gives hope to those who are part of this movement. But the cause for that hope is deeper than it first seems. The involvement of so many young people is encouraging not just because they are the future and will carry forth the cause into the culture, into their families, into the voting booth, and into the legislatures and courts…MORE
Planned Parenthood Tries To Abort The First Amendment (The Daily Caller, January 19, 2016)
Last year a federal judge in Idaho ruled that a so-called “ag-gag law” – which prohibited undercover recordings from being filmed inside agricultural and food-processing plants – is unconstitutional. That good news for cows, chickens and pigs could spell bad news for Planned Parenthood...MORE
Below are news clippings. Please comment on and share these as well.
Father Frank Pavone Notes Large Youth Involvement in Right to Life Movement (Breitbart.com, January 22, 2016)
March for Life president: Snow won’t stop march to end abortion (The Washington Times, January 21, 2016)
Snowstorm Not Stopping March for Life Protesters (CBN.com, January 22, 2016)
Newman Society, Pro-Life Groups Call on Media to Fairly Cover March for Life (Cardinal Newman Society, January 21, 2016)
The Fascinating Story Of The Woman At The Center Of Roe v. Wade (HuffingtonPost.com, January 22, 2016)
Meet the priest who regrets his role in an abortion (LifeSiteNews.com, January 21, 2016)
Millions of Women Regret Their Abortions, We Should Pay Attention to Their Stories (LifeNews.com, January 22, 2016)
Hundreds rally to stop new DC abortion facility ahead of March for Life (LifeSiteNews.com, January 22, 2016)
Majority of Pro-Choicers Would Restrict Abortion in America (CBNNews.com, January 20, 2016)
March for Life organizers say march will go on despite blizzard forecast (Our Sunday Visitor, January 20, 2016)
Blessings,
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
The past few days have been such an exciting time in the pro-life movement! In spite of the weather on the East Coast, the March for Life was a great success. Those that were able to attend were a powerful witness to life as were all of the events surrounding the March. After the March in DC, I flew out West to the Walk for Life in San Francisco for more great events commemorating the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Please keep an eye out at PriestsForLife.org where we have some photos posted and will continue to post photos and video throughout the week.
Recently, I had the following op-eds published for the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. I invite you to read and comment on them and also share them on your own social media accounts, email lists etc. This is a simple action you can take to help spread the pro-life message and counter any anti-life comments that others may have submitted. Below the op-eds I have provided links to some good news articles about the March.
Finally, please see our media schedule for the week here.
Two different crowds, one dream (WashingtonTimes.com, January 21, 2016)
Those of us who were part of the diverse and large congregation that filled the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on the Martin Luther King holiday Monday for the King Center’s 48th annual Commemorative Service were not weary at the end of a service that lasted more than four and a half hours. On the contrary, we were energized, as I have been after each of these services that I’ve attended for over a decade…MORE
The March for Life and the 2016 election (FoxNews.com, January 21, 2016)
This week, hundreds of thousands of Americans will participate in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. as well as in other marches on the West Coast and in cities, town and villages everywhere in between. This flood of concerned citizens represents a deeply unsettled issue in our country: the lives of children in their first nine months are not protected by law…MORE
Uncanny Convergence: MLK Jr., the March for Life and Christian Unity (Aleteia.org, January 22, 2016)
Each January, three observances converge that reinforce each other and summon the Christian world to work together against injustice. January 15 is the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and on or around that day we observe a national holiday in his honor. A week later, on January 22, we recall the tragic decision made that day in 1973 by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, unleashing a policy of abortion on demand. On or around January 22, large rallies and marches for life are held from coast to coast. And from January 18 to 25 each year, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is observed….MORE
The March for Life and Jane Roe (PewSitter.com, January 22, 2016)
The reason the national March for Life in Washington DC is on January 22, this Friday, is because that is the date of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton Supreme Court decisions in 1973 permitting abortion throughout pregnancy. Much will be said and debated about these decisions, their legal ramifications, how the Court has weakened them over the years, and what the prospects are for the future…MORE
Pro-Woman is Pro-Life, and Pro-Life is Pro-Woman (National Catholic Register, January 22, 2016)
Almost a year ago, I had the honor of meeting a young woman named Andrea. Months earlier, on learning she was pregnant, she had taken the first drug in the RU-486 abortion regimen, and immediately regretted her decision. Racing against the clock, she found a doctor about an hour away from her home in New Jersey who would immediately begin a reversal protocol that stops the starvation of the baby. Her son Gabriel was born healthy on Dec. 31, 2014…MORE
The March for Life and Youth (Breitbart.com, January 21, 2016)
One of the most frequently heard observations about the annual March for Life, to take place again this Friday in Washington, D.C., is that it consists mostly of young people. And this gives hope to those who are part of this movement. But the cause for that hope is deeper than it first seems. The involvement of so many young people is encouraging not just because they are the future and will carry forth the cause into the culture, into their families, into the voting booth, and into the legislatures and courts…MORE
Planned Parenthood Tries To Abort The First Amendment (The Daily Caller, January 19, 2016)
Last year a federal judge in Idaho ruled that a so-called “ag-gag law” – which prohibited undercover recordings from being filmed inside agricultural and food-processing plants – is unconstitutional. That good news for cows, chickens and pigs could spell bad news for Planned Parenthood...MORE
Below are news clippings. Please comment on and share these as well.
Father Frank Pavone Notes Large Youth Involvement in Right to Life Movement (Breitbart.com, January 22, 2016)
March for Life president: Snow won’t stop march to end abortion (The Washington Times, January 21, 2016)
Snowstorm Not Stopping March for Life Protesters (CBN.com, January 22, 2016)
Newman Society, Pro-Life Groups Call on Media to Fairly Cover March for Life (Cardinal Newman Society, January 21, 2016)
The Fascinating Story Of The Woman At The Center Of Roe v. Wade (HuffingtonPost.com, January 22, 2016)
Meet the priest who regrets his role in an abortion (LifeSiteNews.com, January 21, 2016)
Millions of Women Regret Their Abortions, We Should Pay Attention to Their Stories (LifeNews.com, January 22, 2016)
Hundreds rally to stop new DC abortion facility ahead of March for Life (LifeSiteNews.com, January 22, 2016)
Majority of Pro-Choicers Would Restrict Abortion in America (CBNNews.com, January 20, 2016)
March for Life organizers say march will go on despite blizzard forecast (Our Sunday Visitor, January 20, 2016)
Blessings,
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
Monday, January 25, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Friday, January 22, 2016
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Analysis of a Conversion - Why I left the Catholic Church, answer to prayer
Yes, answer to prayer. To be more precise, I didn't know that my prayers were being answered.
In a really unbelievable, mystical thing that was going on when I was an atheist, God showed me that my prayers, had been answered.
Let me explain. The saying, "there are no atheists in foxholes" was very true for me. Whenever I felt that I was in danger, I reached out to God. And considering my lifestyle, that was very frequently. But, I was never very grateful when I found myself safe and sound. I attributed that to my quick thinking or to luck. But not to my prayer. Nor to God's grace.
One of the strange things about me, is that, although I considered myself an atheist, I frequently found myself talking to someone in whom I professed not to believe. I don't know if that is common amongst atheists. But, whenever I was drunk and alone, which was a great deal of the time, I spent much of my time complaining to someone who wasn't there. Someone whom I would attribute as the cause of all my troubles and whom I apparently believed had the power to change my circumstances. Then I would ridicule myself for talking to myself. And then I would do it again.
Strange, huh?
Here's one prayer that will always stand out in my mind. When I was very much an atheist, in college, and I first set eyes on the woman whom I would one day marry. The following prayer escaped my lips before I could think about it. I said, "God, if you give me that woman for my wife, I will go to Church every Sunday."
Well, I went down to introduce myself, she completely ignored me and I said, "That's what I get for praying." But the next day, she was in my first class. And then in another. And then we met. And then we became friends. And then, we got married. I had forgotten all about my prayer, though. But God reminded me, when the time was right.
And that brings us to the point of why I came back to the Catholic Church. We'll start on that, next time.
In a really unbelievable, mystical thing that was going on when I was an atheist, God showed me that my prayers, had been answered.
Let me explain. The saying, "there are no atheists in foxholes" was very true for me. Whenever I felt that I was in danger, I reached out to God. And considering my lifestyle, that was very frequently. But, I was never very grateful when I found myself safe and sound. I attributed that to my quick thinking or to luck. But not to my prayer. Nor to God's grace.
One of the strange things about me, is that, although I considered myself an atheist, I frequently found myself talking to someone in whom I professed not to believe. I don't know if that is common amongst atheists. But, whenever I was drunk and alone, which was a great deal of the time, I spent much of my time complaining to someone who wasn't there. Someone whom I would attribute as the cause of all my troubles and whom I apparently believed had the power to change my circumstances. Then I would ridicule myself for talking to myself. And then I would do it again.
Strange, huh?
Here's one prayer that will always stand out in my mind. When I was very much an atheist, in college, and I first set eyes on the woman whom I would one day marry. The following prayer escaped my lips before I could think about it. I said, "God, if you give me that woman for my wife, I will go to Church every Sunday."
Well, I went down to introduce myself, she completely ignored me and I said, "That's what I get for praying." But the next day, she was in my first class. And then in another. And then we met. And then we became friends. And then, we got married. I had forgotten all about my prayer, though. But God reminded me, when the time was right.
And that brings us to the point of why I came back to the Catholic Church. We'll start on that, next time.
Jesus did not command cannibalism
Once again, there is no indication in Scripture that He had any. But it is very possible that He did since the Todah sacrifice was already instituted and very common amongst the Jews.LG: God's word does not contradict itself. Mans twisting it does. Once again: When Jesus said these words, He was in the synagogue in Capernaum (John 6 verse 59), and He had neither bread nor wine.
Therefore Jesus was either commanding cannibalism or He was speaking figuratively.Neither do I.I don't see where He commanded cannibalism..
I don't see any Scriptures where drinking blood in the appearance of wine is forbidden. And I see one explicit command to do so..in fact I see many scriptures where drinking blood is a no no.......
Its not about you. The Catholic interpretation is right, whether you believe it or not.Therefore I have to conclude the RCC interpretation is in error.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Paraphrasing the Summa: First part, Question 3, article 5
Article 5. Whether God is contained in a genus?
Is God one of a group? In other words, is there more than one God?
Objection 1. It seems that God is contained in a genus. For a substance is a being that subsists of itself. But this is especially true of God. Therefore God is in a genus of substance.
God is a divine thing first and then God. Therefore, God exists in a group.
Objection 2. Further, nothing can be measured save by something of its own genus; as length is measured by length and numbers by number. But God is the measure of all substances, as the Commentator shows (Metaph. x). Therefore God is in the genus of substance.
In addition, all things are comparable to other like things. But God is not measured by any other thing. Therefore, God is a type of divinity.
On the contrary, In the mind, genus is prior to what it contains. But nothing is prior to God either really or mentally. Therefore God is not in any genus.
St. Thomas says otherwise. To the human mind, categories or groups precede individuals. But God is before anything. God is beyond any category or group which man can invent.
I answer that, A thing can be in a genus in two ways; either absolutely and properly, as a species contained under a genus; or as being reducible to it, as principles and privations. For example, a point and unity are reduced to the genus of quantity, as its principles; while blindness and all other privations are reduced to the genus of habit. But in neither way is God in a genus. That He cannot be a species of any genus may be shown in three ways.
There are two ways in which creatures can be grouped. Either by a attributes they hold in common, such as human beings and monkeys, because of attributes they have in common, are specific beings under the the category of primate. Or by attributes they don't hold, such as lacking the quality of sight, makes one blind, whether one is human or monkey. Thus, there are sightless monkeys as well as sightless humans.
But in neither way is God in a genus. That He cannot be a species of any genus may be shown in three ways.
But God is in neither of those groups. This can be proved in three ways.
First, because a species is constituted of genus and difference.
Kinds within a group are identified by their differences.
Now that from which the difference constituting the species is derived, is always related to that from which the genus is derived, as actuality is related to potentiality.
Within the group (genus), the various kinds (species) differ one from the other in the same degree as "that which is" to "that which could be".
*I know that "evolution" has a bad connotation to Christians, but, I get the impression that is what St. Thomas is talking about here. Let's take the genus of primate. All primates have hands, similar styled faces and exhibit similar behaviors. So, to distinguish between them are the differences. And these differences are almost evolutionary. Monkeys have more unactualized potential than humans. They are less evolved.
For animal is derived from sensitive nature, by concretion as it were, for that is animal, which has a sensitive nature.
Beasts are, by nature, sentient. All beasts have the capacity to feel.
Rational being, on the other hand, is derived from intellectual nature, because that is rational, which has an intellectual nature,
Intelligent beings have intelligence. Intelligent beings have the capacity to think logically.
and intelligence is compared to sense, as actuality is to potentiality.
And the capacity to think has the same relationship to the capacity to feel as reality has to possibility.
*Again, I see here a relationship of evolution. Animals have the capacity to feel but have not evolved the capacity to think.
The same argument holds good in other things. Hence since in God actuality is not added to potentiality, it is impossible that He should be in any genus as a species.
But, God is different. There is nothing and no one to whom He can be compared and everything is true to Him. As the Scripture says, "Everything is possible with God" (Matt 19:26).
Secondly, since the existence of God is His essence, if God were in any genus, He would be the genus "being", because, since genus is predicated as an essential it refers to the essence of a thing. But the Philosopher has shown (Metaph. iii) that being cannot be a genus, for every genus has differences distinct from its generic essence. Now no difference can exist distinct from being; for non-being cannot be a difference. It follows then that God is not in a genus.
The second proof is this. God's Divinity is His Reality, His Being. If God were categorized, it would be as "Reality" because that is what He Is. But, in order to categorize something, there must be a difference attributed to it within that category. But since there is nothing and no one else which can be compared to God, then God can't be grouped or categorized.
Thirdly, because all in one genus agree in the quiddity or essence of the genus which is predicated of them as an essential, but they differ in their existence. For the existence of man and of horse is not the same; as also of this man and that man: thus in every member of a genus, existence and quiddity--i.e. essence--must differ. But in God they do not differ, as shown in the preceding article. Therefore it is plain that God is not in a genus as if He were a species. From this it is also plain that He has no genus nor difference, nor can there be any definition of Him; nor, save through His effects, a demonstration of Him: for a definition is from genus and difference; and the mean of a demonstration is a definition.
In a group or category, all share a certain nature within that group. But, within that nature, they differ in real terms, they differ in being. Thus, a horse differs from a man, though they are both grouped with animals.
But, there is no other Being who can be grouped with God. God is one and there is no other besides Him.
That God is not in a genus, as reducible to it as its principle, is clear from this, that a principle reducible to any genus does not extend beyond that genus; as, a point is the principle of continuous quantity alone; and unity, of discontinuous quantity. But God is the principle of all being. Therefore He is not contained in any genus as its principle.
God can not be categorized. Because God is reality itself. Therefore, all things exist in God and God can not be contained in one category.
Reply to Objection 1. The word substance signifies not only what exists of itself--for existence cannot of itself be a genus, as shown in the body of the article; but, it also signifies an essence that has the property of existing in this way--namely, of existing of itself; this existence, however, is not its essence. Thus it is clear that God is not in the genus of substance.
Reality is not a group. Because that which is not "real" does not exist. Therefore, reality is not a group.
On the other hand, the word "material" (i.e. substance) points not only to those things which are physically real, but also to those things which are made up of certain elements. But there is a difference between their being and their nature.
In other words, gold is, by nature, hard. But so is granite.
Reply to Objection 2. This objection turns upon proportionate measure which must be homogeneous with what is measured. Now, God is not a measure proportionate to anything. Still, He is called the measure of all things, in the sense that everything has being only according as it resembles Him.
God is the measure of all things but God Himself can not be measured. Therefore, man can not conceive the magnitude of God's Being. And can not, therefore, put God in any category or group. God is beyond man's ability to comprehend.
Objection 1. It seems that God is contained in a genus. For a substance is a being that subsists of itself. But this is especially true of God. Therefore God is in a genus of substance.God is a divine thing first and then God. Therefore, God exists in a group.
Objection 2. Further, nothing can be measured save by something of its own genus; as length is measured by length and numbers by number. But God is the measure of all substances, as the Commentator shows (Metaph. x). Therefore God is in the genus of substance.In addition, all things are comparable to other like things. But God is not measured by any other thing. Therefore, God is a type of divinity.
On the contrary, In the mind, genus is prior to what it contains. But nothing is prior to God either really or mentally. Therefore God is not in any genus.St. Thomas says otherwise. To the human mind, categories or groups precede individuals. But God is before anything. God is beyond any category or group which man can invent.
I answer that, A thing can be in a genus in two ways; either absolutely and properly, as a species contained under a genus; or as being reducible to it, as principles and privations. For example, a point and unity are reduced to the genus of quantity, as its principles; while blindness and all other privations are reduced to the genus of habit. But in neither way is God in a genus. That He cannot be a species of any genus may be shown in three ways.There are two ways in which creatures can be grouped. Either by a attributes they hold in common, such as human beings and monkeys, because of attributes they have in common, are specific beings under the the category of primate. Or by attributes they don't hold, such as lacking the quality of sight, makes one blind, whether one is human or monkey. Thus, there are sightless monkeys as well as sightless humans.
But in neither way is God in a genus. That He cannot be a species of any genus may be shown in three ways.But God is in neither of those groups. This can be proved in three ways.
First, because a species is constituted of genus and difference.Kinds within a group are identified by their differences.
Now that from which the difference constituting the species is derived, is always related to that from which the genus is derived, as actuality is related to potentiality.Within the group (genus), the various kinds (species) differ one from the other in the same degree as "that which is" to "that which could be".
*I know that "evolution" has a bad connotation to Christians, but, I get the impression that is what St. Thomas is talking about here. Let's take the genus of primate. All primates have hands, similar styled faces and exhibit similar behaviors. So, to distinguish between them are the differences. And these differences are almost evolutionary. Monkeys have more unactualized potential than humans. They are less evolved.
For animal is derived from sensitive nature, by concretion as it were, for that is animal, which has a sensitive nature.Beasts are, by nature, sentient. All beasts have the capacity to feel.
Rational being, on the other hand, is derived from intellectual nature, because that is rational, which has an intellectual nature,Intelligent beings have intelligence. Intelligent beings have the capacity to think logically.
and intelligence is compared to sense, as actuality is to potentiality.And the capacity to think has the same relationship to the capacity to feel as reality has to possibility.
*Again, I see here a relationship of evolution. Animals have the capacity to feel but have not evolved the capacity to think.
The same argument holds good in other things. Hence since in God actuality is not added to potentiality, it is impossible that He should be in any genus as a species.But, God is different. There is nothing and no one to whom He can be compared and everything is true to Him. As the Scripture says, "Everything is possible with God" (Matt 19:26).
Secondly, since the existence of God is His essence, if God were in any genus, He would be the genus "being", because, since genus is predicated as an essential it refers to the essence of a thing. But the Philosopher has shown (Metaph. iii) that being cannot be a genus, for every genus has differences distinct from its generic essence. Now no difference can exist distinct from being; for non-being cannot be a difference. It follows then that God is not in a genus.The second proof is this. God's Divinity is His Reality, His Being. If God were categorized, it would be as "Reality" because that is what He Is. But, in order to categorize something, there must be a difference attributed to it within that category. But since there is nothing and no one else which can be compared to God, then God can't be grouped or categorized.
Thirdly, because all in one genus agree in the quiddity or essence of the genus which is predicated of them as an essential, but they differ in their existence. For the existence of man and of horse is not the same; as also of this man and that man: thus in every member of a genus, existence and quiddity--i.e. essence--must differ. But in God they do not differ, as shown in the preceding article. Therefore it is plain that God is not in a genus as if He were a species. From this it is also plain that He has no genus nor difference, nor can there be any definition of Him; nor, save through His effects, a demonstration of Him: for a definition is from genus and difference; and the mean of a demonstration is a definition.In a group or category, all share a certain nature within that group. But, within that nature, they differ in real terms, they differ in being. Thus, a horse differs from a man, though they are both grouped with animals.
But, there is no other Being who can be grouped with God. God is one and there is no other besides Him.
That God is not in a genus, as reducible to it as its principle, is clear from this, that a principle reducible to any genus does not extend beyond that genus; as, a point is the principle of continuous quantity alone; and unity, of discontinuous quantity. But God is the principle of all being. Therefore He is not contained in any genus as its principle.God can not be categorized. Because God is reality itself. Therefore, all things exist in God and God can not be contained in one category.
Reply to Objection 1. The word substance signifies not only what exists of itself--for existence cannot of itself be a genus, as shown in the body of the article; but, it also signifies an essence that has the property of existing in this way--namely, of existing of itself; this existence, however, is not its essence. Thus it is clear that God is not in the genus of substance.Reality is not a group. Because that which is not "real" does not exist. Therefore, reality is not a group.
On the other hand, the word "material" (i.e. substance) points not only to those things which are physically real, but also to those things which are made up of certain elements. But there is a difference between their being and their nature.
In other words, gold is, by nature, hard. But so is granite.
Reply to Objection 2. This objection turns upon proportionate measure which must be homogeneous with what is measured. Now, God is not a measure proportionate to anything. Still, He is called the measure of all things, in the sense that everything has being only according as it resembles Him.God is the measure of all things but God Himself can not be measured. Therefore, man can not conceive the magnitude of God's Being. And can not, therefore, put God in any category or group. God is beyond man's ability to comprehend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)