Father Barron/Thomas Aquinas?

[SpeakKindly]

I watch a lot of Father Barron’s videos on YouTube. He has said somethings that confuse me, and I was wondering if someone could help explain some of them.

In a video Father Barron says that “God is not a being”, but rather, “God is being itself”. “God is not just good, but goodness itself”, similarly Father Barron says that “God is not just love, but love itself”.

He is following what Thomas Aquinas has stated about God not being “Heighest being”, but “Being itself”.

What does “God is being itself”, mean?

Does the Catholic Church also follow much of what Thomas Aquinas has written (as Father Barron seems to), including on this topic?

I trust Father Barron’s videos, but I’m really confused on this, and I’m unsure if the Church also accepts much of what Thomas Aquinas believed.

 

[Porknpie]

I watch a lot of Father Barron’s videos on YouTube. He has said somethings that confuse me, and I was wondering if someone could help explain some of them.

In a video Father Barron says that “God is not a being”, but rather, “God is being itself”. “God is not just good, but goodness itself”, similarly Father Barron says that “God is not just love, but love itself”.

He is following what Thomas Aquinas has stated about God not being “Heighest being”, but “Being itself”.

What does “God is being itself”, mean?

Does the Catholic Church also follow much of what Thomas Aquinas has written (as Father Barron seems to), including on this topic?

I trust Father Barron’s videos, but I’m really confused on this, and I’m unsure if the Church also accepts much of what Thomas Aquinas believed.

Aristotle coming through Aquinas… Have you taken a philosophy course yet? He is speaking to what is the essence of God. Being does not mean person here…all things have at their source God.

 

[JRKH]

It’s a mystery…

Seriously - such statements are, IMHO, an attempt to convey the Majesty and mystery of God using terms that we might understand…but in a way that, frankly, shows how thoroughly impossible it is for us to truly understand.
As St Paul says (somewhere) for now we see dimly.

I believe (based on reading some of the saints) that the only way that we can even begin to understand such things is through experience of God…through immersion in the Spirit…of “becoming” that which God wishes for us to be. It cannot be had through any sort of explanation.

I know the above is not really an answer to your question but it’s the best that this poor soul can do. Perhaps others will be more enlightening.

As to Aquinas’s influence on the Church…It is indeed great - primarily in the Western (Latin) Church. I don’t think he is quite as influential in the Eastern Rite Churches.

Peace
James

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It’s a mystery…

Seriously - such statements are, IMHO, an attempt to convey the Majesty and mystery of God using terms that we might understand…but in a way that, frankly, shows how thoroughly impossible it is for us to truly understand.
As St Paul says (somewhere) for now we see dimly.

I believe (based on reading some of the saints) that the only way that we can even begin to understand such things is through experience of God…through immersion in the Spirit…of “becoming” that which God wishes for us to be. It cannot be had through any sort of explanation.

I know the above is not really an answer to your question but it’s the best that this poor soul can do. Perhaps others will be more enlightening.

As to Aquinas’s influence on the Church…It is indeed great - primarily in the Western (Latin) Church. I don’t think he is quite as influential in the Eastern Rite Churches.

Peace
James

This.

But as for God not being a Being, but rather Being itself. It is not too difficult a concept when we consider God for a moment.

God IS. There is no “since the beginning” since there is no beginning (or end) Therefore, before creation, God was the ONLY reality ALWAYS from forever. It’s hard to imagine, but before creation God was already in existence an INFINITE amount of time (if we can even use that word.) So it isn’t really a stretch of any kind to say that God IS being. All of creation exists BECAUSE of GOD. Our being is due to God who IS being. So if we can grasp that idea, then it wouldn’t be too difficult to understand why it is said God IS love, or IS holiness, etc.

 

[SpeakKindly]

Aristotle coming through Aquinas… Have you taken a philosophy course yet? He is speaking to what is the essence of God. Being does not mean person here…all things have at their source God.

I have not, but allow me to explain how I understand it (and have explained it to others), and tell me if I’m wrong please.

To say that God is not a being, means that He cannot be classified as a being (be it a human, turtle, fairy, or anything else that is able to be placed in a class with other-like creatures), and simply compared to them.

For example, if there was a turtle who was invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc - then this would *still *not be God, because this is still a being (the being we call “turtle”). In this way, some creature can be God-like, but not God Himself, because Him being God is not based on being superior to other beings in existence (He isn’t competing against all other creatures, and just happens to be superior to all of them).

To say that God is “being itself”, is to say that “being” (existence, reality, etc) has its source in the one, never changing, source of all existence - that is God.

This also goes for all good, just, loving, merciful, etc things that we can understand. Everything comes from God’s own existence, and so He is appropriately said to be “being itself”, because without God, there is nothing.

How’s that ? I essentially tried to explain it to someone like, that, but I wasn’t really sure what I was talking about to be honest, so I felt bad. :\

 

[DonMack]

The idea that “God is being itself” is really not that complicated. As the Church teaches, in the beginning, before God created the heavens and the earth, there was God. God has always been . He was not created, he has always been and will always be. he IS ‘being’.
As a side note; the verb ‘to be’ is really the heart of philosophy. Thomas Aquinas argues that theology and philosophy are not in opposition to each other, in fact he says that God can be know through philosophy and that theology expands the philosophical ideas.
Dr Taylor Marshal has just completed an e-book, “Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages” It’s a good primer into philosophy and the Church teachings. I believe it’s still available free at this link… gallery.mailchimp.com/8c3419ef22aaa45aea4663ebb/files/Thomas_Aquinas_in_50_Pages_text_Final_June_1.pdf

 

[Beryllos]

I essentially tried to explain it to someone like, that, but I wasn’t really sure what I was talking about to be honest, so I felt bad. :\

If you mean that you felt inadequate or something like that (my kids would say “I felt stupid”), you are in good company. This is hard stuff to understand. I think there are also limitations of our language and the way we usually use word like “being” and “is.” I saw that Fr. Barron video several weeks ago, and I remember thinking “I thought I understood theology, I think I’m pretty smart, but this is really challenging!” I don’t think I totally got it, and I am pretty sure I could not explain it to someone else now.

1 Corinthians 1:19 (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)
For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I watch a lot of Father Barron’s videos on YouTube. He has said somethings that confuse me, and I was wondering if someone could help explain some of them.

In a video Father Barron says that “God is not a being”, but rather, “God is being itself”. “God is not just good, but goodness itself”, similarly Father Barron says that “God is not just love, but love itself”.

He is following what Thomas Aquinas has stated about God not being “Heighest being”, but “Being itself”.

What does “God is being itself”, mean?

Does the Catholic Church also follow much of what Thomas Aquinas has written (as Father Barron seems to), including on this topic?

I trust Father Barron’s videos, but I’m really confused on this, and I’m unsure if the Church also accepts much of what Thomas Aquinas believed.

You have to remember that Thomas Aquinas was attempting to establish philosophical proofs for the existence of God and His Nature. In other words, he was attempting to show that from the observation of physical reality we could formulate " proofs " for the existence of God: that is of a Being whose existence and nature we could infer and who had enough of the " attributes " of the Christian God that we are justified in identifying Him as the God Who Revealed Himself in history.

Thomas demonstrates the the First Cause is Pure Existence, or Pure Being Whose Effects ( the created universe ) are beings in an analogious sense, in that their caused existences are pale reflections of the Pure Being or Pure Existence of God.

The Catholic Church identifies God’s nature in various De Fide statements as being Absolutely Perfect, the One and Only and True God, Infinite in every Perfection, Absolutely Simple, Immutable, Eternal, Intelligent, etc. These various " attributes " of God’s Nature are not various accidents as they are in created beings but are various ways of looking at the Absolute Simplicity of God Whose Absolute Simplicity is all these Perfections, they and His Absolute Simplicity are One and the Same. You should be able to understand this from your Catechism. But Ludwig Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma gives a complete listing of the Defined Perfections of the Absolutely Simplicity Which is One, Which is God. And this is what Thomas and Fr. Barron call the Absolutely Perfect Being which Is Pure Existence and which is Pure Subsistent Existence.

Hope that helps. If you don’t understand it get a copy of " Aquinas " by Edward Feser and see if that helps you. On the other hand, you don’t have to understand the philosophical discription of God given by Thomas. All you need to do and must do, even if you understand Thomas perfectly, is stick to the teachings of the Church as found in your Catechism. Philosophy is fine, but not everyone can understand it. But Faith is open to all - even to the unphilosophical.

Linus2nd

 

[sw85]

I watch a lot of Father Barron’s videos on YouTube. He has said somethings that confuse me, and I was wondering if someone could help explain some of them.

In a video Father Barron says that “God is not a being”, but rather, “God is being itself”. “God is not just good, but goodness itself”, similarly Father Barron says that “God is not just love, but love itself”.

He is following what Thomas Aquinas has stated about God not being “Heighest being”, but “Being itself”.

What does “God is being itself”, mean?

Does the Catholic Church also follow much of what Thomas Aquinas has written (as Father Barron seems to), including on this topic?

I trust Father Barron’s videos, but I’m really confused on this, and I’m unsure if the Church also accepts much of what Thomas Aquinas believed.

Yeah, as others have said, it’s a mystery because we have nothing in our experience we could correlate it to. Analogies literally fail. When Moses asked God his name, he responded simply “I am what I am.” He could not say “I am John,” because “John” carries with it the connotation “I am one member of the human race, whose particular name happens to be John.” God is not a member of anything. He just is.

I sometimes find Plato’s idea of the form of forms helpful. Imagine a chair, say, a rolling computer chair. Now imagine a different one, say, the luxurious throne of a king. Both are chairs by virtue of their mutual participation in the “form of the chair.”

Now imagine computers: one the giant, clunky, house-sized computers they used in the 60s, the other a tiny, sleek tablet manufactured last month. Both are computers by virtue of their mutual participation in the “form of the computer.”

But if individual chairs relate to one another the way computers relate to one another, then it follows that the act of relating itself has a pattern – that, in other words, the “form of the chair” and the “form of the computer” are both instances of some higher form, a “form of forms.” And that, we call God.

We can imagine things being instances of particular forms; we can’t imagine forms being instances of anything because we can’t observe forms.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I watch a lot of Father Barron’s videos on YouTube. He has said somethings that confuse me, and I was wondering if someone could help explain some of them.

In a video Father Barron says that “God is not a being”, but rather, “God is being itself”. “God is not just good, but goodness itself”, similarly Father Barron says that “God is not just love, but love itself”.

He is following what Thomas Aquinas has stated about God not being “Heighest being”, but “Being itself”.

What does “God is being itself”, mean?

Does the Catholic Church also follow much of what Thomas Aquinas has written (as Father Barron seems to), including on this topic?

I trust Father Barron’s videos, but I’m really confused on this, and I’m unsure if the Church also accepts much of what Thomas Aquinas believed.

Acts (St Paul speaking) 17: [27] And yet, after all, he is not far from any one of us; [28] it is in him that we live, and move, and have our being

It is in Him that we: i) live and ii) move and iii) have our being. No doubt this is a mystery for most of us, but philosophy or reason can increasingly understand this or clarify its meaning beyond the evidence of our ordinary experience of physical things.

The Catechism :

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

 

[Porknpie]

I have not, but allow me to explain how I understand it (and have explained it to others), and tell me if I’m wrong please.

To say that God is not a being, means that He cannot be classified as a being (be it a human, turtle, fairy, or anything else that is able to be placed in a class with other-like creatures), and simply compared to them.

For example, if there was a turtle who was invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc - then this would *still *not be God, because this is still a being (the being we call “turtle”). In this way, some creature can be God-like, but not God Himself, because Him being God is not based on being superior to other beings in existence (He isn’t competing against all other creatures, and just happens to be superior to all of them).

To say that God is “being itself”, is to say that “being” (existence, reality, etc) has its source in the one, never changing, source of all existence - that is God.

This also goes for all good, just, loving, merciful, etc things that we can understand. Everything comes from God’s own existence, and so He is appropriately said to be “being itself”, because without God, there is nothing.

How’s that ? I essentially tried to explain it to someone like, that, but I wasn’t really sure what I was talking about to be honest, so I felt bad. :\

I am currently reading the book suggested to you below by a previous poster … after reading another about Aristotle. Ten pages a night is about all my mind can do…but it’s well worth it.

If you don’t understand it get a copy of " Aquinas " by Edward Feser and see if that helps you.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

What does “God is being itself”, mean?

What it means is that God does not receive His being from another. He simply is. All other being have their existence from God; but God has his existence from no one. He simply is. We see this in God’s words to Moses, when he called Himself: “I am who Am”.