Thanks for this presentation, much appreciated. Keep up shepherding the flock.

God bless this ministry.

Thank you Aquinas 101, may our God Jesus Christ Bless you!

A lot to absorb, how ever,so clearly explained.have renewed my understanding of a Sacrament/Sacraments .

Kudos Father. Thanks so much!

@ThomisticInstitute

3 жыл бұрын

Our pleasure!

@jackinthevox

3 жыл бұрын

​@@ThomisticInstitute Hey this video is still missing from your master playlist, and you have TWO copies of Baptism and Confirmation instead

Thanks for upload. Well done.

@ThomisticInstitute

3 жыл бұрын

Our pleasure!

This channel is amazing

Thanks Fr.for that instructive so well explained.I wonder if some people are really aware the significance of each sacrament? or aware we need to be open to God Grace? Mary 👃

I'm usually not a fan of the flipping home improvement shows, (I mean actual flipping; that's not a euphemistic curse) but in this video, the analogy works well! 🙂

This video appears to be MISSING from the master playlist!

Scholastic theology proposed the sacramental distinctions sacramentum tantum (ony sacrament or external sign), sacramentum et res (sacrament and thing or immediate effect) and res tantum (only the thing or ultimate reality). Does this distinction make any contribution to our understanding of the sacraments today?

Hey i need some help what is a sacramental mind and sacramental life?

Some of us have been confused between a sign and a symbol. Can you please clarify?

So, the res tantum involves concrete actions. Does this mean that while sacraments work ex opere operanto, we only ever access their full power ex opere operantis?

@MountAthosandAquinas

3 жыл бұрын

Hey Clay, Here is a quote from Thomist Reginald Garrigou Lagrange that may be helpful for you: “The merit and prayer of the just soul obtain the gifts of God ex opere operantis, by reason of the faith, piety, and charity of him who merits, but the sacraments produce grace ex opere operato in those who do not place an obstacle to it; in other words, by themselves they produce grace from the fact that they were instituted by God to apply the merits of the Savior to us. They produce grace independently of the prayers and the merits, either of the minister who confers them or of those who receive them. This explains why a bad priest, and even an unbeliever, may validly administer baptism, provided he has the intention of doing what the Church does in conferring it.”

@tomgreene2282

3 жыл бұрын

@@MountAthosandAquinas Good stuff...like the bit about unworthy ministers...not to mention unworthy recipients!

@MountAthosandAquinas

3 жыл бұрын

Clay McDermott, I realized I failed to past the entire quote. Here is the rest of it: “But, although the sacraments of themselves produce grace in those who do not place an obstacle to it, they produce it more or less abundantly according to the fervor of him who receives it. The Council of Trent says that each one receives justice “according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills and according to each one’s disposition.” In the natural order, as St. Thomas observes, although an open fire of itself gives heat, a person benefits more from its influence in proportion as he draws closer to it. Likewise, in the supernatural order a person benefits so much the more from the sacraments as he approaches them with a more lively faith and a greater fervor of will. From this point of view, St. Thomas and many of the early theologians hold that, according as the sinner receives absolution with greater or less repentance, he recovers or does not recover the degree of grace which he had lost. “Now the intensity of the penitent movement,” says St. Thomas, “may be proportionate sometimes to a greater grace than that from which man fell by sinning, sometimes to an equal grace, sometimes to a lesser. Wherefore the penitent sometimes arises to greater grace than that which he had before, sometimes to an equal, sometimes to a lesser grace.” Reginald Garrigou Lagrange from his book “3 stages of the interior life.”

Hi. :) Please, let us pray together. Dear God who art in heaven hallow be thy name thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, in Jesus Christ's name we pray, amen.

Ex opere operantis??

You can prove from reason that a necessary being exists, but can you prove from reason that this necessary being is the god of the bible? Or do you only do that by faith? Even after going through divine attributes, a skeptic could still say ‘ I believe in a necessary good simple god, but not the god of the bible’ Please help me get over this objection Thanks, ben

@fiveadayproductions987

3 жыл бұрын

Check out Ed Feser's Five Proofs for The Existence of God book that shows how the The Divine Attributes are derived. There's a whole chapter dedicated which a comment can't do justice and tackle objections but here's a short excerpt from his 14tg premise: "...14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer. 15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack. 16. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have. 17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer. 18. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer. 19. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization. 20. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials. 21. So, it is immutable or incapable of change. 22. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not. 23. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time. 24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not. 25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial. 26. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not. 27. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal. 28. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have. 29. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect. 30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation-that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it. 31. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation. 32. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good. 33. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials. 34. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer. 35. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer. 36. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent. 37. So, the purely actual actualizer is omnipotent. 38. Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle of proportionate causality). 39. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things. 40. So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer. 41. These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect. 42. They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things. 43. So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect. 44. So, the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence. 45. Since it is the forms or patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts. 46. For there to be nothing outside the range of something’s thoughts is for that thing to be ominiscient. 47. So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient. 48. So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient. 49. But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exist. 50. So, God exists."

@Jingnan-j1h

3 жыл бұрын

@@fiveadayproductions987 thanks!

So you're saying it takes as much power to launch a rocket into space as it takes to get a husband to take out the trash?