Monday, June 25, 2012

Checkpoint

Checkpoint

I haven't had nearly as much time to study as I had hoped, but perhaps this next week I will. I'm still not settled on a topic. My reading lately has been about knowing, having read the questions on the soul's knowledge of self, separated substances, and how it know ls when itself separated. All of these I read with special attention to how individuals are known. The criteria he gave for know individuals after death were interesting. One must have prior knowledge, affection, natural relationships, or some divine dispensation. He doesn't give reasons for these, although it seemed a key text was Dives and Lazarus from st Luke. I have met some who think that story is only a myth and therefore disregard the particulars of it. I'm not sure how essential it for the arguments.

I also just obtained the part of the Summa in what a person is, so I'm going to start reading that. I have a couple friends who have been considering that question and hope to write a thesis on that topic.

I also the other day began rereading St. Paul. This for two reasons. I wanted to see his teaching on grace and a friend of mine is considering a thesis in the gifts associated with the charismatic renewal. One does not need an excuse to read st Paul. Some passages is still very difficult, and I have found st Thomas helpful with his commentaries.

Having just found articles about natural movement of the will, I may go back to considering nature. Also I have been reading a doctoral thesis on the common good and will soon join a seminar on the common good.


Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, June 21, 2012

In supremo apostolatus

In supremo apostolatus

A friend was asking about the church's teaching in slavery and I fortuitously was told about Pope Gregory XVI. Here's what he says:

"[W]e have judged that it belonged to Our pastoral solicitude to exert Ourselves to turn away the Faithful from the inhuman slave trade in Negroes and all other men. [...] [D]esiring to remove such a shame from all the Christian nations, having fully reflected over the whole question and having taken the advice of many of Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. Further, in the hope of gain, propositions of purchase being made to the first owners of the Blacks, dissensions and almost perpetual conflicts are aroused in these regions.
We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter."



Sent from my iPhone

St Thomas on grace

St Thomas on grace

Today I read one of the most obscure texts I've yet seen, st Thomas on the essence of grace. I found it difficult first to understand what he was saying and second to understand why this was true but he points to other articles in the Summa. This came up when trying to think of objections to the thesis that grace does not destroy nature but elevates and perfects it. I spent some time considering what a theological consideration is. That was helpful. But now I am more confident that I do not know exactly what grace. I will read the text again more slowly and spending time with the Latin. And then I will turn to the parts he references to justify his arguments.

What does it mean for something to be in the essence of the soul? That is something else I must learn.


Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Thesis time

Thesis time

I think I fell into the temptation offered by nifty technology which allows one to let out thoughts and feelings in a kind of half-baked unthought-out way. Despite my posts on here, I'm almos nowhere nearer actually picking a topic and settling down with it. I'm actually rather far.

I think I should probably sit down and form an outline or two. I know I have enough thoughts to actually make several substantial papers, but I just have to do.

Let's do it.


Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

On the Spirit and the Letter, Chapter 52

On the Spirit and the Letter, Chapter 52

30. 52. Liberum ergo arbitrium evacuamus per gratiam? Absit, sed magis liberum arbitrium statuimus. Sicut enim lex per fidem 313, sic liberum arbitrium per gratiam non evacuatur, sed statuitur. Neque enim lex impletur nisi libero arbitrio. Sed per legem cognitio peccati, per fidem impetratio gratiae contra peccatum, per gratiam sanatio animae a vitio peccati 314, per animae sanitatem libertas arbitrii, per liberum arbitrium iustitiae dilectio, per iustitiae dilectionem legis operato. Ac per hoc, sicut lex non exacuatur, sed statuitur per fidem, quia fides impetrat gratiam, qua lex impleatur, ita liberum arbitrium non evacuatur per gratiam, sed statuitur, quia gratia sanat voluntatem, quia iustitia libere diligatur. Omnia haec, quae velut catenatim connexi,habent voces suas in Scripturis sanctis. Lex dicit: Non concupisces 315; fides dicit: Sana animam meam, quoniam peccavi tibi 316; gratia dicit: Ecce sanus factus es; iam noli peccare, ne quid tibi deterius contingat 317; sanitas dicit: Domine Deus meus, esclamavi ad te et sanasti me 318; liberum arbitrium dicit: Voluntarie sacrificabo tibi 319; dilectio iustitiae dicit: Narraverunt mihi iniusti delectationes, sed non sicut lex tua, Domine 320. Ut quid ergo miseri homines aut de libero arbitrio audent superbire, antequam liberentur, aut de suis viribus, si iam liberati sunt? Nec adtendunt in ipso nomine liberi arbitrii utique libertatem sonare; Ubi autem spiritus Domini, ibi libertas 321. Si ergo servi sunt peccati, quid se iactant de libero arbitrio? A quo enim quis devictus est, huic et servus addictus est 322. Si autem liberati sunt, quid se iactant velut de opere proprio et gloriantur, quasi non acceperint 323? An ita sunt liberi, ut nec illum velint habere Dominum, qui eis dicit: Sine me nihil potestis facere 324, et: Si vos Filius liberaverit, tunc vere liberi eritis 325?


Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Aristotle's heavy and light

Aristotle's heavy and light

This is going to be a very short post. I was skimming the part in the De Caelo where Aristotle considers the meaning of heavy and light, and also the meanings of upward and downward movement. He says that upward movement is movement which is toward the extremity of the universe, downward movement is that which seeks a center.

Now the center he refers to above is most probably the center of the earth as he conceives this to be the center of the universe, yet it's interesting that the definitions remain a bit open ended. It seems that upward motion could correspond to the so-called inertial motion by which a body maintains its speed and direction even unto the edge of the universe. It is even more obvious that account downward motion as centripetal motion corresponds to gravitational motion by which every body tends to every other body as a center.

I intend to read fully books 3 and 4 of De Caelo which discuss the natural motion of terrestrial bodies. Hopefully this will help me to determine if planetary motion is natural, given Newton's proof the they are moved according to the same principle by which lower bodies are moved.


Sent from my iPhone

An example of true exegesis

An example of true exegesis

One criticism of scriptural exegesis is that one will often have some preconceived doctrine and then will try to find this in Scripture, using just a few words and extending their meaning far beyond what the author could possibly have intended.

I've heard st Thomas criticized if this, both in his sed contras and in his commentaries of Scripture, but I recently found a passage in the Summa that show St. Thomas was aware of this problem and took care to avoid it.

The passages I have in mind are the bodies of I-II.84.1 and 2. Here he is considering how it can be said the avarice is the root of all sin and pride is beginning of all sin. In each of these he lays out three meaning if the vice in question and the last meaning is always the most agreeable to the thesis of the article. Yet after he shows this agreeable meaning, he goes on to say "although this is all true, it is not what the author had in mind." What an exegete! Instead of imposing meaning and truth on the words, he looks to the context to find the author's intended lesson. Instead of taking pride and avarice in their more general senses, he take them as special vices (as the sacred authors seem to intend) and then is able to teach us a great deal more about our turning away from God.

I was especially intrigued by his understanding of how avarice as love of wealth is fittingly called the root of all sin. He says that all temporal goods can be obtained by wealth, whereas the only unchanging good cannot. In this way he shows why money is so greatly desired by the wicked (it can attain anything they want) and exactly what it can't obtain. Reading this article is almost like receiving an exhortation to poverty, at least for those who desire the unchanging good.
---
I came upon these articles while trying better to understand sin. Someone had asked me why Catholics pray for the dead, and I was able to give some answer, but I was I unsatisfied with my understanding of these things. This has led to a lot of jumping around the Summa.


Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Taking a census

Taking a census

The book of Numbers is perhaps even more puzzling than Leviticus. It's been awhile since I read it, but I remember that a decent amount of it is spent giving a count of how many Israelites there are. There are other stories of happenings in the desert, but the census is what gives the book its name.

Why is this done?

Even more mysterious is the sinfulness of David in taking a census toward the end of his reign. At the end of Samuel, it says that the Lord led David to do it on account of anger against the Israelites. But that it requires a punishment is not obvious.

There are also the mystical numberings of those who live in heaven found in Daniel and Revelation. These certainly seem figurative (not in the sense of a ballpark figure), yet it would not be given without reason. This should point us back to the earthly censes which otherwise may not seem significant, but merely accidental.

Finally there is the fact that Christ was born while his family was reporting for a census. Perhaps one might say it is stated just so that we know why the holy family was searching for an inn in the first place. Yet it seems providential in a greater way. This should be considered.


Sent from my iPhone

Newtonian angelology

Newtonian angelology

The title might be a bit misleading, but seemed like a good eye catch for this post. I told my thesis advisor that I would probably write about how it is possible for angels to know bodily individuals. I knew that they could on account of our faith in guardian angels, but it seemed doubtful on rational grounds since angels lack some material organ by which they could perceive bodies. God is simpler in a way. Since he is the cause of materiality, it makes sense that he know all of his material effects, and thus every particular. According to st Thomas, angels know material things because God places in them knowledge of both the formal and material principles of beings, and therefore know us individuals with bodies. More could be explained, but that's a decent summary.

Now what intrigued me in st Thomas' account is that he frequently referred to an analogy with bodies.

[terrestrial bodies]:[celestial bodies]::[human mind]:[angelic mind]

Fairly clear analogy. He relates motion in the bodies to knowledge in the minds. I'd have to read again to see the exact terms, but through this he is able to explain why it is fitting that the angels do not have to learn, just as the heavenly bodies do not suffer alteration. Now most people in our modern world look at this and immediately think that that whatever st Thomas thinks about the planets is false and therefore disregard the analogy. There is plenty of reason to do this. The analogy seems to be more of an illustration than an argument, so I don't think an astronomical argument will destroy angelology.

Yet the question remains: what can our physics teach us about the higher intellects? By our physics, I mean Newton's. I know there's all that Einstein and quantum stuff, but Newton is modern enough. If I can understand a cosmology which accommodates his greatest discovery, then we will be ready to move forward from there. Einstein's work seems like a development of Newton's; quantum is a whole different story, but one I would be interested to approach in time. Even if angelic arguments do not rest on physics, st Thomas seems interested in teaching that physics is a good means by which to understand angels.

So on to Newton. Newton's single greatest achievement as far as I know consists in seeing that the motion of the heavenly bodies is caused by the same cause which makes terrestrial bodies fall toward the earth. This is astounding. Perhaps atomists of old made similar claims, but Newton gives the excellent proof for it in his third book of the Principia. With this argument, it seems that there is no difference in kind between lower and higher bodies. This doesn't have to follow, for animals are certainly bodies and as such are subject to the conditions of bodies yet are still other in kind insofar as they transcend merely material existence. In the case of the planets however, no argument for a difference in kind is readily apparent.

Whether tangential or not, a consideration of animals seems necessary to make at some point. Descartes reduced to machines, mere conglomerations of bodies. Newton would seem to incline to this view as well. This brings me to my earnest desire to study physiology. It seems to me that animals have something of an interior life insofar as they have sensation. By sensation, it seems that they have a true experience, which is something that no machine could ever undergo. This certainly arises out of and from their bodies with their physico-chemical functions, but it is something beyond. I'm not sure exactly what a proof of this would look like. If one grants the otherness of our experience, then one could infer it for animals. I suppose it just seems true that cats chase mice in order to eat them. One could explain the billions of physical processes which explain this action, yet there would still be some intelligibility in saying that the cat was chasing the mouse in order to eat it. A cat is something. A mouse something. Eating is good for cats. Chasing is good for getting something to eat. Any child could grant the last four statements, but many socalled philosophers would avoid making those assertions at all costs. Or at least would say their meaning does not correspond to a reality.

This is going all the way around to a statement I considered last semester: Newton's account of motion does violence to our notion of goodness as a cause. If one reduced all of the motions of bodies to the rules in the Principia, there would be no diversity of natures, no morality, and really no natural good for anything. It would just be (which means one could still argue that God exists). Yet this is not what we experience. When I heard arguments that "arrow of time" could go in either direction, I was somewhat astounded but it seemed to follow. But then I realized that would mean we don't do anything because of anything, rather we happen to do one thing at a different time than we do another thing. This should strike us as odd.

I wonder biologists think about all of this. Perhaps chemists and even physiologists are not affected by this arbitrary account of direction, biologists would seem to take a great interest in it. Especially evolutionary biologists, who argue for a progression among life forms over time. Life and death would also lose their respective meanings. It just seems nonsensical.

So this brings me back to a consideration related to the above: how the object of apprehension is a cause of motion. After some ponderous thinking, I think I can grant the natural axiom that there is no action at a distance. (I'm actually going to talk about Einstein a little bit.) Now for men and animals to be moved by their appetites, they must somehow perceive what they want. The cat sees the mouse, wants it, and then chases it. One might say that the mouse is distant from the cat and therefore can't act on it, can't cause it to move. Yet the mouse is not distant insofar as it is in the cat's senses and imagination. It got there through a medium which joined them. Thus there was no action at a distance.

Now we move on to the socalled gravitational force. It seems to act at a distance, for instance when the earth pulls on the moon. Yet even this force seems to be exerted through a medium. Newton looked for some kind of fluid and couldn't find it, quantumists are looking for gravitrons but having trouble. I don't propose that this force is or isn't a body (I incline toward saying it isn't) but that the origin of the force is joined to its object by a medium. Thus a body will exert its power on what touches it, and what touches it will exert it on what touches it and so on. Since every body in the universe is connected, it will eventually exert some little influence on every body. Quantumists might say otherwise, but I have a suspicion that too much of what they say is based on the limitedness of human instruments. That's a bold claim and I could be wrong. So granting the continuousness of the universe, what I said would work. It seems congruent with Newton and Einstein at least, that latter one even proving that this force takes time to travel, evidence that the action is not at a distance.

So that's kind of a lot to think about. I want to think about plants more. They barely have an interior life and don't even have sense, so why are the called living? I also want to read more of Aristotle's account of the motion of bodies, including the upper ones. Physiology would be great too: what initiates motion in an animal? A good question.

I almost feel crazy spending time considering these things. It seems unnecessary to the modern mind to reconcile Aristotle's natural axioms with modern physical discoveries, and it also seems odd to make connections between morality and physics. Nonetheless, these have not been sufficiently considered to my knowledge and I think an intellect that recognizes problems seeks satisfaction of certain apparent contradictions. Yet the crowd with whom I talk about these things is extremely limited unless I find a better mode of presentation.


Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Holy orders

Holy orders

In the last week, I have received many questions about holy orders and I have also heard the stories of several men who are about to be ordained to the priesthood. When I was younger, I wondered why this sacrament was called holy orders, but there is good reason.

Between God and man, an order has been established through which they are joined. The most important order of all is that which Christ has between us and God, yet God established other orders as well for the purpose of bringing us before him. In the Old Testament, one finds the priesthood given to Aaron and his sons. This is detailed at length onion Leviticus. Moses writes about how Aaron and his sons are to be distinguished from the people, and even further how Aaron is distinguished from his sons. This is done through a difference in outward garments. There are furthermore specific offerings made and also impediments which correspond to the spiritual disposition that a priest must have.

Understanding that all of Leviticus carries a spiritual meaning which looks to the priesthood of the New Law opens up a book that seems otherwise obsolete to a Christian. The letter to the Hebrews relies heavily on the understanding of the priests in the Old Law. I do not have the Scriptire at hand or I would lay out some of the ways in which the new is hidden in the old.

I will look at one case: the rules governing how a priest is to marry. This is certainly spiritual with regard to the new law, for most of the holy priests now remain celibate and do not take a wife in marriage. He is not to marry a prostitute (he shall not make wealth his end) nor one who has lost her honor (he shall not give way to pleasure) nor one who is divorced (he shall not be hateful, causing division). The reason for all of this is that he is sacred and set apart by God. He is to marry a virgin, that is, he is to stay undefiled from the love of anything in this world, having his heart set on God alone.

That is very rough but gives some idea of a spiritual reading of the old priesthood. The gravity with which all is dealt in the old law, which is ineffective, should bring one to see the extreme gravity of those who enter holy orders under the new law which has the power to save. The power to save! Without the priesthood, there is no forgiveness of sins or divine sacrifice. There is little divine teaching and no authority. How necessary this order is for each and every man! This is why we must pray for the increase and perseverance of those in holy orders.


Sent from my iPhone

Monday, June 11, 2012

The name of the Holy One

The name of the Holy One

In everyday life, one often hears the holy name used thoughtlessly. Even in prayer, one can use the Lord's name and become inattentive of what one is saying. The latter is no great crime, but does fall away from the attention due to the divine name.

Thou shall not use the Lord's name in vain.

Hallowed be thy name.

The Lord has done great things for me and holy is his name.

So many references are made to the Lord's name in both scripture and the liturgy, that it would be difficult for any one person to have them committed to memory. It is enough to see that it is present in the most important parts of scripture. The divine praises too bless the holy names of God, Christ, and Mary. Whole orders of religious are set aside for reparation on account of offenses against the holy name. How many are the offenses!

James talks about how the tongue is deadly member, such that controlling it is equivalent to having perfect virtue. Christ said that it is not what comes into the mouth that makes men evil, but rather what comes out of it, for this manifests the heart.

So not only must we careful to avoid offending against his holy name, but we must also give it due veneration.

May his name be always on our lips.

Through speaking the Lord's name in a worthy manner, our tongue will become like pen in the hand of a scribe, always ready to sing the Lord's praises. When our lips our cleansed and elevated, then our heart too will be properly disposed for true worship.

One interesting point is that honor for the divine name belongs to the natural law. I do not understand this fully, but it is among the ten commandments, which contain the natural law. The reason he gives is that man's natural end consists in the vision of God, and therefore the first three commandments are for the sake of attaining this end. A more human reason for its part in natural law is the common good. There are certain occasions in political life where a man must swear by someone higher than himself in order to assure his honesty. If the divine name is not held in esteem, then no man will care for pledges made in that name. This is not good for society, thus even natural reasoning can see why the holy name should not be used in vain. St. Thomas' reason with regard to our order to God is true as well, though it is more difficult to see how entirely our perfection depends on God without a revelation of his love.

So whereas lies have been a constant topic of conversation lately, it seems that conversation concerning the divine name would also be helpful for see the fundamental role speech plays in the moral life of man.


Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Not being Catholic

Not being Catholic

I am Catholic, but there are a lot who aren't. There are a lot who were raised in the faith but did not continue in it. There are many who do not baptize their children. Why? What do we do?

Two persons, both raised in nominally Catholic families critiqued the church for worshipping Mary and the saints. They fell away from the church on account of a false understanding of her teachings. I often question how important teaching is, but this kind of event makes it clear. Catholics must be educated. Without this, there will be error in the words and souls of many. And Christ is truth: in him there is not No but only Yes. I heard many flippant lies told today. Surely there is no great crime in a brief lie, yet to lie habitually is not becoming to one seeking the truth. And all should seek the truth.

Another thing is birth control. How many think it a standard! Yet how contrary to marriage. I met one married couple today who when asked about children said they were far foo young and busy to have children. My only thought: why did you get married then?! It's kind of bogus. Even on a natural level, it can be discerned that marriage and all sexuality is primarily ordered to the origin and care of children. For a Christian, these things are even more manifest, for the sacrament consists in a total self donation which bears immense fruit, physical and spiritual. Yet no one teaches this. Some do and the Lord will bless them.

In today's wedding, though it was Protestant, the preacher said basically all true things. How marriage reflects Christ and his Church, how it is to be indissoluble and fruitful, and so on. This is consoling.

So we must teach the faithful and actually all peoples insofar as the opportunity comes. But the truth is not enough. We must present it with love, for the will is unfortunately mixed up in great part with the intellectual life of man. Even that is not enough. We must recommend souls to God through the intercession of Mary, the most fruitful virgin and mother.

I met a couple other Protestants recently and they gave me great hope. They asked many questions. They cared for the truth and loved Christ. It seems that these are the kind of individuals with whom an intellectual conversation will be the most possible and the most fruitful. When many such as these have entered more fully into truth, it will radiate from them according to their character and this variety will appeal to more, make kingdom of God more known.


Sent from my iPhone

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Habits and truth

Habits and truth

First of all, apparently the trial version of this typing app only allows up to five files, thus it's a good thing I found a way to export these things to a blog so that they may last just that much longer. I will put off paying the three dollars for the full app as long as I can...

Now to the topic at hand: habits. I had planned on writing about gravity but then I had another conversation which brought out to me how impossible the intellectual life is without well formed habits. Basically it came down to discussing something until the question was reduced to a contradiction where one side led to an immediate absurdity. This happened several times. Even on the very point of contradiction itself or the existence of motion and so on. How does one make a first principle clearer? There's almost nothing to be done if the other is dedicated to being contrary.

I'm not even sure where I should go after this. If one has a poor way of life (by poor I mean decadent and malicious), then one will be inclined to seek out and present arguments which defend that way of life. Sometimes one will cling to arguments with the most bogus premises, such that nothing exists or that change and difference are mere illusion. Such premises, if actually held, would destroy the possibility of any communication. Even letting them pass from the mouth is enough to make one concerned about the truth in that speaker's words. Perhaps with good reason, for if their passions cause their speech, then one is basically just working with a real dangerous animal. (Though it should be remembered that one must never lose hope in another's salvation.)

I intended to write much more about particular virtues, especially temperance, but sleep is coming quickly and will probably overtake me. At least it should be said that temperance allows one to enjoy bodily pleasure in the proper mode so that one is then free to seek true joy in freedom from the chains of passion and appetite. So much more. Ave Maria!


Sent from my iPhone

Friday, June 8, 2012

St Thomas on the Bible

St Thomas on the Bible

This way of posting thoughts through my phone is actually pretty nifty. I can do it from anywhere. The keyboard is actually a decent enough size that it isn't tedious to type this up. Faster than writing at least.

So I was recently reminded of my interest in Thomistic Biblical theology. That is, learning how to read the bible from st Thomas. Something of this idea came to me while reading Servais Pinckaers who saw the need to integrate the parts of theology so that they do become separated and isolated from their context. He seemed to think that st Thomas saw this as well, which is why he placed the section on "moral theology" right in the middle of the Summa, wedged between the consideration of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the two great mysteries of the faith.

So a Thomistic biblical theology would consist primarily in learning how to read the bible well, as st Thomas and the wisest church fathers read it. This doesn't mean merely taking their interpretations and making them popular, but rather learning from them a method or spirit of biblical interpretation. St Augustine's work on Christian doctrine is one that falls in this school. I remember being a bit disappointed that in his rules of interpretation he didn't say things like "this animal always signifies this" and so on. Rather he gave the most general principles along with some examples. The most important principles being love and faith. An interpretation must not be contrary to the teaching of the faith for it would be false, and little good comes from falsehood. Not only must it be true and consonant but it must something which builds up the faithful in charity, encouraging them to a greater love of God and neighbor, for such is the whole law.

So st Thomas gives more examples of authentic interpretation, both literal and spiritual, and leads one to those fathers who have contemplated the spiritual meaning of the inspired scriptures. Two places in particular come to mind: the commentaries on St. Paul and the section in the summa on the Old Law. These are brilliant. The Pauline commentaries are of especial interest because he takes a seemingly haphazard collection of letters with various bits of advice and shows that some rationale can be seen behind all of it, ordering it all around the mystery of grace in the Mystical Body which is the central theme in the writings of st Paul. Thus it disposes the believer to discern order in scripture.

The questions on the Old law are brilliant because he is able give a literal and a spiritual meaning for nearly all contained in the Pentateuch, which is no mean feat. Now it by no means exhaustive and some of the interpretations seem may seem like a stretch, but this does not keep it from being one of the most fruitful interpretations on that part of scripture, even if only for bringing together the commentators who came before him. Not only does be find reasons for all that is said, but some of it is able to be situated within a human philosophy of ethics, namely when he talks about the moral precepts and how these are identical with natural law. In defending this claim, he justifies the study of moral philosophy for a Christian.

Those are only two examples, but there are probably other places in st Thomas where he shows skill as an exegete. The study of st Thomas doesn't end with him, but gives one the proper starting place for learning from the fathers or even from those doctors after st Thomas (Cornelius a Lapide comes to mind, also st John of the Cross).

Then one must ultimately return to the scriptures themselves and even further to one's own experience of God. Since the truth of scripture is held by faith, one must have a living faith in order to derive any great benefit from its study.

So that brings me back to my desire to study more thoroughly and eventually even teach st Thomas' mode of exegesis to others. A more perfect understanding of scripture will be necessary for the continued evangelization of the world.


Sent from my iPhone

All right

All right, I suppose it works.

So I'm probably going to knock my last name off of my profile so that this isn't something that shows up when my name is searched. Not that I'm going to write anything off the wall, but it will be incomplete and unpolished. I'm also using my phone to type this so what can one expect?

Basically I just found myself without a computer or a notebook (what a situation), but I have this new-fangled phone. So I might as well use it to its fullest capacity. So I'll type in the word processor app I found and then just email post the final result to the blog.

What will I write about? Whatever. Lately I've been considering a possible thesis topic, though I've also been questioning the usefulness of speculative philosophy. In case some odd person is reading this, I ought to say that I am extremely fond of theoretical philosophy, and only question dedicating oneself to it given that the world seems to have greater needs in this age. Surely truth must have a dwelling among us and this will happen most effectively through diligent study.

I want to write about Newton and his account of motion and nature and forces. Also about Aristotle and the object. I also want to write about grace. How ill it is understood sometimes! People fall into extremes because the true position is perhaps too good to be true. I'm going to make dramatic claims like that without caring too much about what anyone thinks. This is basically my mobile notebook.


Sent from my iPhone

Check this out..

This is just a test post, emailing from my phone to the blog.


Sent from my iPhone