The Divine Lamp

The unfolding of thy words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple…Make thy face shine upon thy servant, and teach me thy statutes

Archive for the ‘Summa Contra Gentes’ Category

On Misrepresenting the Thomistic Five Ways

Posted by Dim Bulb on February 3, 2010

An online article by Professor Joseph A. Buijs looks at common error concerning the famous five ways.  Here is what the abstract states:

A number of recent discussions of atheism allude to cosmological arguments in support of theism. The five ways of Aquinas are classic instances, offered as rational justification for theistic belief. However, the five ways receive short shrift. They are curtly dismissed as vacuous, arbitrary, and even insulting to reason. I contend that the atheistic critique of the Thomistic five ways, and similarly formulated cosmological arguments, argues at cross purposes because it misrepresents them. I first lay out the context, intent and structure of Aquinas’ arguments, then show in what way recent discussions misrepresent them, and finally conclude with a comment on metaphysical orientation, which I take to be central, not only to a proper understanding of the Thomistic five ways but generally to the debate between atheism and theism on the existence of God.

Read The Article (pdf).

Posted in Catholic, Logic, Philosophy, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Alasdair MacIntyre: A Select History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition

Posted by Dim Bulb on November 26, 2009

Posted in Books, Philosophy, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Simple Summa: The Divine Unity

Posted by Dim Bulb on November 7, 2009

The following post is taken from A Compendium Of The Summa Theological Of St Thomas Aquinas.  The Compendium was done by St Thomas himself, but he was only able to finish the first part (pars prima) before his death.  Previous posts on this work can be found here.

The Unity of God is dealt with in Question 11 of the Summa, in four articles.  Ive provided links to those articles in the text below.

ST 1, 11, 1 One is convertible with Being, and adds nothing to it but the negation of division.  Everything is either simple or compound; what is simple is undivided and indivisible; what is compound has no existence whilst its parts are divided, but only when they make and compose the compound; hence the existence of anything maintains its being accordingly as it preseres it unity.

ST 1, 11, 2 One is opposed to many, but in different ways, for one, which is the beginning of numbers, is opposed to multitude as the measure is to the thing measured, because One represents the first measure, and number is multitude measured by one, while One, as it is interchangeable with Being, is opposed to multitude by way of privation of multitude, as the undivided is to the divided.

ST 1, 11, 3 God is One, for that which causes a thing to be singular cannot be communicated to many; and this belongs to God, for God Himself is His own Nature; hence “God” and “this God” are the same.  Wherefore there cannot be many gods, which is also evident from the fact that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfections of existence.  If there were several gods, something would belong to one and not to another, and so he in whom was privation of anything would not be simply perfect.  The same is likewise proved by the unity of the world, for one is the cause of one, and things are better arranged by one than by many, and are brought into uniform order.  ST 1, 11, 4 Thus God is pre-eminently One, because He is pre-eminently Being, inasmuch as He has not any existence restricted to any other nature, but He is Himself His own Existing Essence, entirely indeterminate and absolutely undivided in act and potentiality, for He is in every way Simple.  Hence God is pre-eminently One.

Further Reading:

Summa Contra Gentiles, ch. 42, vol. 1

Companion to the Summa, Vol. 1 by Walter Farrell, O.P.  This chapter summarizes articles 3-11 of the first part of the Summa.

Posted in Books, Compendium of the Summa, Dogmatic Theology, Philosophy, Quotes, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

More Links To Online Works About Aquinas

Posted by Dim Bulb on August 18, 2009

My previous document WORKS BY AND ABOUT ST THOMAS AQUINAS has done fairly well on Scribd.  Below is another document on Aquinas I just uploaded to that site.

Posted in Aquinas morality, Aristotle, Audio/Video Lectures, Logic, Morality, Philosophy, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Podcast: Chapter One of the Summa Gentiles

Posted by Dim Bulb on August 16, 2009

I’ve taken a brief brake from my brief brake from blogging to post this, from Waterboy at The Thirsting Fountain

Posted in Audio/Video Lectures, Books, Logic, Philosophy, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Genesis 1:1~Catechetical and Devotional Resources

Posted by Dim Bulb on July 2, 2009

Catechism of the Council of Trent: 1015  The necessity of having previously imparted to the faithful a knowledge of the omnipotence of God will appear from what we are now about to explain with regard to the creation of the world. The wondrous production of so stupendous a work is more easily believed when all doubt concerning the immense power of the Creator has been removed.

For God formed the world not from materials of any sort, but created it from nothing, and that not by constraint or necessity, but spontaneously, and of His own free will. Nor was He impelled to create by any other cause than a desire to communicate His goodness to creatures. Being essentially happy in Himself He stands not in need of anything, as David expresses it: I have said to the Lord, thou art my God, for thou hast no need of my goods.

As it was His own goodness that influenced Him when He did all things whatsoever He would, so in the work of creation He followed no external form or model; but contemplating, and as it were imitating, the universal model contained in the divine intelligence, the supreme Architect, with infinite wisdom and power­attributes peculiar to the Divinity ­­ created all things in the be ginning. He spoke and they were made: he commanded and they were created.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 205-301

Haydock Commentary: Ver. 1. Beginning. As St. Matthew begins his Gospel with the same title as this work, the Book of the Generation, or Genesis, so St. John adopts the first words of Moses, in the beginning; but he considers a much higher order of things, even the consubstantial Son of God, the same with God from all eternity, forming the universe, in the beginning of time, in conjunction with the other two Divine Persons, by the word of his power; for all things were made by Him, the Undivided Deity. (Haydock) — Elohim, the Judges or Gods, denoting plurality, is joined with a verb singular, he created, whence many, after Peter Lombard, have inferred, that in this first verse of Genesis the adorable mystery of the Blessed Trinity is insinuated, as they also gather from various other passages of the Old Testament, though it was not clearly revealed till our Saviour came himself to be the finisher of our faith (Calmet) — The Jews being a carnal people and prone to idolatry, might have been in danger of misapplying this great mystery, and therefore an explicit belief of it was not required of them in general. See Collet. &c. (Haydock) — The word bara, created, is here determined by tradition and by reason to mean a production out of nothing, though it be used also to signify the forming of a thing out of pre-existing matter. (ver. 21, 27.) (Calmet) — The first cause of all things must be God, who, in a moment, spoke, and heaven and earth were made, heaven with all the Angels; and the whole mass of the elements, in a state of confusion, and blended together, out of which the beautiful order, which was afterwards so admirable, arose in the space of six days: thus God was pleased to manifest his free choice in opposition to those Pagans who attributed all to blind chance or fate. Heaven is here placed first, and is not declared empty and dark like the earth; that we may learn to raise our minds and hearts above this land of trial, to that our true country, where we may enjoy God for ever. (Haydock)

St Thomas Aquinas’ Catechetical Instruction On The Creed:

It has been shown that we must first of all believe there is but one God. Now, the second is that this God is the Creator and maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. Let us leave more subtle reasons for the present and show by a simple example that all things are created and made by God. If a person, upon entering a certain house, should feel-a warmth at the door of the house, and going within should feel a greater warmth, and so on the more he went into its interior, he would

believe that somewhere within was a fire, even if he did not see the fire itself which caused this heat which he felt. So also is it when we consider the things of this world. For one finds all things arranged in different degrees of beauty and worth, and the closer things approach to God, the more beautiful and better they are found to be. Thus, the heavenly bodies are more beautiful and nobler than those which are below them; and, likewise, the invisible things in relation to the visible. Therefore, it must be seen that all these things proceed from one God who gives His being and beauty to each and everything. “All men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen could not understand Him that is. Neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman. . . . For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.”[1] Thus, therefore, it is certain for us that all things in the world are from God.

ERRORS RELATING TO THE FIRST ARTICLE

There are three errors concerning this truth which we must avoid. First, the error of the Manicheans, who say that all visible created things are from the devil, and only the invisible creation is to be attributed to God. The cause of this error is that they hold that God is the highest good, which is true; but they also assert that whatsoever comes from good is itself good. Thus, not distinguishing what is evil and what is good, they believed that whatever is partly evil is essentially evil–as, for instance, fire because it burns is essentially evil, and so is water because it causes suffocation, and so with other things. Because no sensible thing is essentially good, but mixed with evil and defective, they believed that all visible things are not made by God who is good, but by the evil one. Against them St. Augustine gives this illustration. A certain man entered the shop of a carpenter and found tools which, if he should fall against them, would seriously wound him. Now, if he would consider the carpenter a bad workman because he made and used such tools, it would be stupid of him indeed. In the same way it is absurd to say that created things are evil because they may be harmful; for what is harmful to one may be useful to another. This error is contrary to the faith of the Church, and against it we say: “Of all things visible and invisible.”[2] “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.”[3] ”All things were made by Him.”[4]

The second error is of those who hold the world has existed from eternity: “Since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”[5] They are led to this view because they do not know how to imagine the beginning of the world. They are, says Rabbi Moses, in like case to a boy who immediately upon his birth was placed upon an island, and remained ignorant of the manner of child-bearing and of infants’ birth. thus, when he grew up, if one should explain all these things to him, he would not believe how a man could once have been in his mother’s womb. So also those who consider the world as it is now, do not believe that it had a beginning. This is also contrary to the faith of the Church, and hence we say: “the Maker of heaven and earth.” For if they were made, they did not exist forever. “He spoke and they were made.”[7]

The third is the error which holds that God made the world from prejacent matter (ex praejacenti materia). They are led to this view because they wish to measure divine power according to human power; and since man cannot make anything except from material which already lies at hand, so also it must be with God. But this is false. Man needs matter to make anything, because he is a builder of particular things and must bring form out of definite material. He merely determines the form of his work, and can be only the cause of the form that he builds. God, however, is the universal cause of all things, and He not only creates the form but also the matter. Hence, He makes out of nothing, and thus it is said in the Creed: “the Creator of heaven and earth.” We must see in this the difference between making and creating. To create is to make something out of nothing; and if everything were destroyed, He could again make all things. He, thus, makes the blind to see, raises up the dead, and works other similar miracles. “Thy power is at hand when Thou wilt.”[8]

GOOD EFFECTS OF OUR FAITH

From a consideration of all this, one is led to a fivefold benefit. (1) We are led to a knowledge of the divine majesty. Now, if a maker is greater than the things he makes, then God is greater than all things which He has made. “With whose beauty, if they being delighted, took them to be gods, let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they. . . . Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them that He that made them, is mightier than they.”[9] Hence, whatsoever can even be affirmed or thought of is less than God. “Behold: God is great, exceeding our knowledge.”[10]

(2) We are led to give thanks to God. Because God is the Creator of all things, it is certain that what we are and what we have is from God: “What hast thou that thou hast not received.”[11] “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world and all they that dwell therein.[12] “We, therefore, must render thanks to God: What shall I render to the Lord for all the things that He hath rendered to me?”[13]

(3) We are led to bear our troubles in patience. Although every created thing is from God and is good according to its nature, yet, if something harms us or brings us pain, we believe that such comes from God, not as a fault in Him, but because God permits no evil that is not for good. Affliction purifies from sin, brings low the guilty, and urges on the good to a love of God: “If we have received good things from the hand of God, why should we not receive evil?”[14]

(4) We are led to a right use of created things. Thus, we ought to use created things as having been made by God for two purposes: for His glory, “since all things are made for Himself”[15] (that is, for the glory of God), and finally for our profit: “Which the Lord thy God created for the service of all the nations.”[16] Thus, we ought to use things for God’s glory in order to please Him no less than for our own profit, that is, so as to avoid sin in using them: All things are Thine, and we have given Thee what we received of Thy hand.”[17] Whatever we have, be it learning or beauty, we must revere all and use all for the glory of God.

(5) We are led also to acknowledge the great dignity of man. God made all things for man: “Thou hast subjected all things under is feet,”[18] and man is more like to God than all other creatures save the Angels: “Let us make man to Our image and likeness.”[19] God does not say this of the heavens or of the stars, but of man; and this likeness of God in man does not refer to the body but to the human soul, which has free will and is incorruptible, and therein man resembles God more than other creatures do. We ought, therefore, to consider the nobleness of man as less than the Angels but greater than all other creatures. Let us not, therefore, diminish his dignity by sin and by an inordinate desire for earthly things which are beneath us and are made for our service. Accordingly, we must rule over things of the earth and use them, and be subject to God by obeying and serving Him. And thus we shall come to he enjoyment of God forever.

Catholic Encyclopedia on Creation.

Catholic Encyclopedia on the Hexaemeron.

Catholic Encyclopedia on the Relation of God to the Universe.

Summa Contra Gentes: That God Is To All Things The Source Of Being.

Summa Contra Gentes: That God Brought Things Into Being From Nothing.

Summa Theologica: Question 44.  The procession of creatures from God, and of the first cause of all things.

Summa Theologica: Question 45. The mode of emanation of things from the first principle.

Summa Theologica: Question 46.  The beginning of the duration of creatures.

On the Creation of the World by Victorinus

Devotional Resources (for meditation and prayer):

St Clement of Rome: What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word134134 Or, “commandment.” // <![CDATA[// into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all,135135 Or, “in addition to all.” // <![CDATA[// with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him— the express likeness of His own image. For 14 thus says God: “Let us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them.”136136 Gen. i. 26, 27. // <![CDATA[// Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, “Increase and multiply.”137137 Gen. i. 28. // <![CDATA[// We see,138138 Or, “let us consider.” // <![CDATA[// then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.

Meditation on Creation in General (may take several seconds to appear)

Job 38 and 39

Proverbs 8:22-31

Psalm 148.

St Augustine: Exposition of Psalm 148.

Pope John Paul II’s Commentary/Meditation on Psalm 148.

Pope John Paul II’s General Audience, Sept 18, 1985God the Almighty Father

Pope John Paul II’s General Audience, Jan 15, 1986God the Creator of heaven and earth.

Pope John Paul II’s General Audience, Jan 29, 1986God call the world into existence from nothing.

Posted in Bible, Catechetical Resources, Devotional Resources, Dogmatic Theology, fathers of the church, John Paul II Catechesis, Notes on Genesis, NOTES ON THE PSALMS, PAPAL COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS, Philosophy, Quotes, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Videos: Anthony Kenny On Aquinas And Medieval Philosophy

Posted by Dim Bulb on June 16, 2009

Please vote for this post.  It will help increase the traffic to my blog.  Thanks!

These five videos combined run for about 45 minutes, and are from an interview Kenny gave on British TV.  They are quite good.

Posted in Audio/Video Lectures, Logic, Philosophy, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

The Knowableness Of God: Introduction

Posted by Dim Bulb on May 27, 2009

If truth is God’s handwriting, the ink is indelible and the page indestructible. If the world is God’s, it cannot deny its allegiance. The Conception of God as found in the works of St. Thomas is the expression of the power of the Creator as witnessed to by the work of His hands. The question of God has never been a problem of the past; in some phase it has always demanded the best thought of the best thinkers of all epochs. There are times, however, when it seems to arouse especial attention — when its full import for all thought is pressed home. We are now in such a time, for we have gone to the very root of the problem — we are now concerned with the Idea of God. Not so much the existence of God, nor a discussion of His Attributes specifically, but the quest is for a Conception of God that will quell our uneasiness in presence of many apparent confusions, and satisfy our demand for an adequate explanation. Many have been and are to-day seeking this Concept, but it is an idle attempt unless the path that leads to it has been shown to be sure and consistent, for this Idea is not the product of bare thought. In other words, our Concept can only have the validity of the methods that have been employed in reaching it.

Prof. Ladd has pointed out what he considers preliminary to the formation of the Concept of God. We must know the development of man’s religious life, we must know human nature in its totality, and, finally, we must have points of view for regarding the sum-total of human experience which will bear the test of the severest critical and reflective thinking. This last point as stated in another place —A tenable and consistent theory of knowledge is then, an indispensable part of the prolegomena to an argument for the being of God,’ is what ,we wish to show in the present paper. Our aim —and this is the implicit burden of all Scholastic treatments of this subject — is to show the intimate connection between the Theory of Knowledge set forth by St. Thomas and his handling of the Knowableness of God. The principles he uses in arriving at a knowledge of any subject are unchanged when he comes to discuss the question of our knowledge of God. Ladd also notes that we must have some theory of reality — we shall state likewise the theory of reality held by our author and follow it throughout. In general the cause of Theodicy is bound up with that of Metaphysics. The science of God is a part of the science of being. The relation of the knowableness of God to the theory of knowledge is so close in Aquinas that a presentation of the two together may give a more satisfying view of the position he held, and which Christian Philosophy also holds, than those unacquainted with his works and not in sympathy with his thoughts are accustomed to have. With this purpose we have written what cannot be new to students of Scholastic Philosophy, but what may serve to awaken in others a friendly regard for a Conception of God arrived at by ways so unlike the ones they are wont to use.

There are a few points in the method of St. Thomas that are worth noting at the outset. He begins with a vague sort of a Conception of God that he considers common to all men. By induction he arrives at a concept more specific yet not complete; this concept he treats by deduction and evolves its implications. The development of this concept by deduction is done according to carefully formulated tests ; its necessity is due to the nature of our mind, for God is truly one, all attributes are identical in Him, but we can only know Him by considering them separately. As a result we have a full and many-sided concept, and no one attribute in particular is made to bear the burden of the whole.

One of the most striking differences between the attitude of Aquinas and that of Modems who have no specific interest in the Conception of God they reach, provided it harmonizes in some way with the general trend of the philosophical systems they are following or framing unto themselves, is the directness and consistency with which he meets the problem in all its developments. “Even when we recognize that the modern spirit is less trammeled in its researches, we shall be forced to admit that it is to some extent hampered by the restrictions which arise from the cultivations of ’systems’ and from loyalty to the traditions of the ’schools.’ St. Thomas sees his way clearly and he utilizes his light to the fullest measure— there is no hesitation when it is asked is such an attribute to be found in God. At once the answer is given — and this is so because his principles are plainly before him and they are the test of his Concept. This fact is highly commendable whether we agree with his principles or not. There are few Conceptions of God given us at present — outside of Christian Philosophy — where the position is ever essentially the same, that cannot be criticised on the score of unwarranted assumption,inconsistent development, incomplete presentation, — some offend against all three.

If we contrast a thought taken from Spencer and one from Paulsen with the position of Aquinas this will be evident. It will show how he admitted the truth in each of their doctrines and yet did not stop where they did. With Spencer from aconsideration of Causation in the world he comes to a First Cause; but Spencer says, if we reason on the nature of this Cause we land in contradiction — “the conception of the Absolute and Infinite, from whatever side we view it, appears encompassed with contradictions”, and hence is practically unknowable. Paulsen, speaking of the God of Pantheists, remarks : ** We cannot presume to give an exhaustive definition of the inner life of the all-real God.. . . The difference between human and divine inner life must indeed be great and thorough- going, so great that there can be no homogeneity at any point.” With this statement St. Thomas holds that we cannot have an exhaustive definition of God; his fundamental thesis— we can know God from creation as a likeness of Him —is opposed to the second half of Paulsen’s view. “From sensible things”, Aquinas says, “our intellect cannot attain to a view of God’s essence (inner life) because creatures are effects of God not equaling the power of the Cause. . . They lead us, however, to a knowledge of God’s existence and from them we learn what we must ascribe to God.” Agnosticism wishes to know too much, Pantheism is too modest, as usual the mean is more satisfying. What Caldecott says of the Idea of God found in Bradley’s “Appearance and Reality,” we quote in a more general sense as applicable, in our opinion, to the shortcomings of much writing on this question. “Is it an impertinence to suggest to an original thinker that a consideration of the canon of application of terms of human thought to the Deity’ formulated by Aquinas, and never surpassed in penetrative and judicious subtlety, might relieve the vacillation and inconsistency, which is the great defect of Mr. Bradley’s work as it stands. This, to our mind, is also the defect of Prof. Royce’s “Conception”, as we shall point out in the text ; Prof. Royce uses the same terms as Mr. Bradley. There is no need of presenting the views of the thinkers of all times on our question. At most we might show how their Idea of God was. an outcome of their Theory of Knowledge and Reality. We shall be content to bring to light again the view of Aquinas, for we are apt to overlook what has been done when all energies are bent on doing something new. As far as we know, the question has not been handled explicitly in the way we are presenting it, at least in English.*” It seemed more satisfactory to give the Theory of Knowledge of Aquinas as a basis for his Conception of God, rather than start with the Conception itself and be constantly referring to a set of principles that are nowhere given together, and yet are closely connected with the subject itself.

It is but fair to admit that Aquinas had advantages in the construction and development of his Idea of God that are not at hand for many to-day who are busy with this problem. He saw guiding posts on all sides and he was presented with a set of ideas the value of which he did not question. The teaching of the Fathers, especially St. Augustine, the attitude of his age toward the Scriptures, the doctrine and influence of the Church in her varied activities, were all helps to one who gave his attention to the Supreme Thought of all these factors. Yet withal, Aquinas saw clearly the work of reason in the question of God and set himself to know what the powers of man could do to solve its meaning. His works bear testimony to the careful and detailed method he brought to bear on this question. We are told, however, by Dr. Carus, “the God of medieval theologians is a mere makeshift.” “The more I think about the God-problem, the surer grows my conviction that the God of science is the true God, and the God of medieval theologians is a mere makeshift, a substitution for the true God, a temporary surrogate of God, a surrogate which at the time was good enough for immature minds, but too often only lead people astray.”

Dr. Carus tells us that our conception of God will be true “if only we agree to be serious in the purification of the God idea, if only we think of God as a truly divine being, if only we are serious in looking upon Him as truly eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.” He adds the astounding sentence: “The theologians of the past have never been serious in thinking out these qualities of God to their very last conclusions.” Without speculating on what led to this statement, or inquiring into the author’s acquaintance with the writings of medieval theologians, I will simply remark that had he sat in the lecture -hall of Aquinas and was determined to swear by his word, he could not have followed more faithfully, in essence, the method of Aquinas than he gives signs of in the present article, especially in the paragraph beginning, God’s thoughts are not transient successive representations.” The method of Aquinas in this problem is golden, and its main import is to be ’serious in the purification of the God idea’. As Dr. Carus acknowledges no allegiance to the formulator of this method, it may be advantageous to consider that when the human mind is serious, no matter at what age it lives, it will be true to itself, and its methods will be commendable though the result reached may vary. Dr. Carus violates his own dictum in dealing with the mediaeval theologians; he says, “in my opinion it is the duty of the philosopher to judge every religion according to the best interpretation that its best representatives have given it.” His attitude is sufficient warrant for our recalling the Conception of God according to Aquinas, for it is certainly a Conception of a worthy representative of the medieval theologians.

Posted in Catechetical Resources, Dogmatic Theology, Philosophy, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Leave a Comment »

The Difference of the Divine Presence in Creatures

Posted by Dim Bulb on May 26, 2009

The following is chapter 2 of THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE SOULS OF THE JUST ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING OF ST THOMAS AQUINAS, by Barthelemy Froget.  The work is in the public domain (USA).   I’ve made it avialable in PDF format only: Different Degrees of the Divine Presence in Creatures.  The first chapter, “The Presence of God in All Creatures” can be read HERE.   the entire work can beaccessed at archive.org.

Posted in Books, Devotional Resources, Quotes, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Leave a Comment »

An Introduction to the Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas

Posted by Dim Bulb on May 4, 2009

Posted in Books, Philosophy, Quotes, ST THOMAS AND THE SUMMA, St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: