Protestant Professor Converts to Catholicism (Ryan Hurd)

[00:00:00]How's it going everybody? Hope you guys are having a great afternoon today.

[00:00:04]Today is July 21st. Um, and today I'm joined by a very uh special guest that I'm very excited to finally speak to.

[00:00:12]Um, uh, Ryan Herd. So Ryan Herd basically he is a a convert from Protestantism. He was a professor at a Protestant university and he has a profound love for the angelic doctor.

[00:00:24]Uh, profound devotion to him and you know that we do hear uh, on our channel as well. probably quote him a lot on our videos. Um, even if I don't consider myself like a a professional to Thomas because I I wouldn't claim that title unless I was, you know, more confident in that. Uh, but basically today I wanted to have Ryan on to Oh, I'm frozen already. That's embarrassing. Okay.

[00:00:45]Well, I'll just uh as I fix my camera, I'll let Ryan introduce himself. But basically, I wanted to have him on to basically talk about the angelic doctor.

[00:00:52]We'll talk a little bit about his conversion very briefly, but I really just want to focus on the angelic doctor, St. Thomas Aquinus and you know just have a back and forth with Ryan on this. Ryan, how are you doing? Uh as I take a while to to to fix my camera, could you just tell us how you're doing and also just a little bit very briefly, however much you feel comfortable about yourself?

[00:01:11]>> Yeah, thanks Kevin. I'm really excited to talk with you today. Uh yeah, my name is Ryan. Uh as you introduced well, I love St. Thomas. Uh and he played a particular role in my own conversion to Catholicism. I grew up uh generally Protestant. Uh depending on how familiar you are with Protestantism, I I typically say conservative Protestant or funky Baptist uh would really peg me. Uh growing up at least my whole family and extended family, just grew up very conservative, good Baptist, very faithful. Uh but as I grew into my teens, I became more reformed. Uh and really that transition was uh more a transition from no theology to some theology or or some systemization of thought if you like uh and becoming more and more reformed uh got into studying reformed orthodox during the modern period the uh neoscalastic Roman Catholic scholastic counterparts uh especially in the reformed world but a lot of the Lutheran Orthodox as well if you know who Richard Müller is kind of that world uh was my world for a fair number of years Um, as I went deeper into studying reform orthodox, this was right back when PRDL had just come out.

[00:02:24]So, those of you who know what PRDL is, uh, now now everyone's has all these PDFs floating around of chatb chatbt translations and such. Well, I was working on PRDL with all the liatures and everything, the the documents. So, surfing PRDL for a number of years for lack of better terms. Um but as time went on I became more and more interested in uh earlier scholastics. So pushing back into medievals uh and eventually started concentrating the University of Paris 13th century uh and Thomas Aquinus. And so Thomas really uh kind of stumbled over him by accident um in the sense of it was just divine providence reading the right books and purchasing the right books and starting to uh read the suma. Um, I had just been taught Latin and so for a summer to improve my Latin skills. This is not good advice for people who are learning actual Latin to uh sit and read scholastic Latin for a summer. But that's what I did by way of Thomas Suma.

[00:03:26]And by the time I made it through, I uh had really uh just caught uh such a love for St. Thomas that I really devoted my life to studying him and learning about him more and more. uh concentrate primarily in doctrine of God, christologology, sense of holy scripture, those sorts of things. Um, and I think that's one of the main reasons why for so long even though I had uh looking back at least I can say somewhat been converted under the tutelage of St. Thomas uh it took a very very long time many many years for uh me to become Catholic in the end. I think primarily one of the reasons why was just the intellectual route that I had taken which was uh largely at least in theory uh the areas of overlap between protestants and Catholics generally speaking. So concentrating on doctrine of God. Um you know you start out in doctrine of God um there's an awful lot of similarity between Protestants and Catholics and at the least uh you know we're doing uno stuff. Uh these are these are things that um there's perfect accord with doctrine of the trinity ought to be perfect accord with usually is as you go deeper and deeper and you study scholastics you start to recognize uh the vast differences between different scholastic masters and the differences between neoscolastic teachers and reformed orthodox. So I really pushed that line very hard and uh continued just pursuing St. Thomas. Uh and over time though um yeah uh his uh other positions I suppose on areas of Roman Catholic Protestant disagreement um I had to continue to follow him all the way for lack of a better term. So that's a that's kind of a very brief summary overview of of some of my story.

[00:05:17]Yeah.

[00:05:18]>> No that was great introduction. Thanks Ryan. So I guess real briefly I want to kind of talk you said this was uh over the course of several years that you were reading St. Thomas. Is that correct? Have I heard you correctly?

[00:05:28]>> Oh, yeah. I I've been reading Thomas for, you know, more than 10 years at this point.

[00:05:32]>> Nice. Okay. Okay. Is there is was there any point where you kind of uh in that course or that journey that road that you looked ahead and you could see your conversion maybe coming in the distance even though you weren't ready at the moment or was there a moment where you you know if I would have asked you uh at a certain minute you would have said no I'm not you know I'm not looking to convert and then like a second later it's like yeah okay I'll was you know did you see it coming?

[00:05:57]>> That's a really fair question. Um, you know, uh, you look back at, uh, your life's journey and you're able to assemble various causes that accumulated over time, >> each one of which individually doesn't throw its weight around so strongly, but over and o, you know, over time they they kind of acquire greater force. Uh, and then all of a sudden you're you're pushed over the edge and you don't know how or why.

[00:06:29]as you're going through that process, at least for me, and trying to be really honest and upright because I also was teaching uh at a at a a Protestant school and uh very frequently uh accused of being a Roman Catholic uh you know, a closet Roman Catholic and a lot of suspicion uh just involving a focus on St. Thomas and so on and so forth and trying to be really honest throughout that process about where I was. Um I have to say throughout yes the vast majority of the time um no I I was not uh really consciously at least inclined to towards Roman Catholicism. Uh it certainly would have been nice to be Roman Catholic.

[00:07:12]There are a lot of uh nice things about being Roman Catholic but as far as like intellectual reasons to to become one.

[00:07:17]Um no I I really didn't experience that for a very long time. And again, a lot of the reason for that, I think, was twofold. One was I wasn't focusing hardly at all uh on issues of Protestant/Catholic disagreement. Uh and then the other the other thing is too, I'm I'm I'm trying to be a professional scholastic or, you know, a pretend scholastic maybe. uh and the the thought world of of a scholastic and dealing with the truth value of individual propositions and and system building and these sorts of things is just so radically divorced from uh normie theology today or contemporary theology even fairly well catechized both Protestant and Catholic theology a lot of it on the ground is just very very different and so over time uh yes looking back there there were uh you know I became very convinced of Catholic positions um you know kind of unwittingly not recognizing that oh this you know set of propositions that that is all dressed in scholastic garb uh really does output or or does represent an aggressive departure from from Protestants.

[00:08:28]>> Um but then also recognizing like that is how theology is. There are a lot of disagreements uh throughout many traditions and it's it's it's sometimes difficult to draw the line of like okay well you believe uh you know transubstantiation well does that make you a Roman Catholic? Well I don't really think so personally. You know a lot of Protestants would be very happy with me for for upholding that. I've always I've always told my Protestant students and just been fairly open that Protestants, it seems to me, can can at least recognize the priors that the Catholic holds. They can recognize, at least in theory, if you're, you know, a good philosopher, a good tois, that um there's nothing per se impossible.

[00:09:11]There's no square circle involving transubstantiation. And then it really just comes down to an issue of octoatas, an issue of authority. and do you accept this as among the mysteries of the Catholic faith or do you not? And I think a lot of Protestants ought to be able to tolerate that at least in theory. So >> yeah, >> there's a lot of a lot of those sorts of things that that assembled along the way.

[00:09:34]>> Um okay, >> but really for me it it came down to a very simple argument exocit from a from >> Yeah, I want to get to that.

[00:09:44]>> I definitely >> doesn't quite make for divine faith. I'm sorry to say. And you know what it moves the needle it makes progress.

[00:09:50]>> I want to get into that about about the argument from Octo. But uh first I do just want to comment of how you know what a complete monster in theology St. Thomas is. Um I mean he is so huge that you talked about PRDL. Uh but another site that you might know of is Reformed Books Online. You heard of that one?

[00:10:07]>> Yeah, of course.

[00:10:08]>> Yeah. There is an entire section on there. I come from >> Yeah. There's an entire section on there because they'll have like the table of contents on the left and it's basically this site for those who don't know basically broken down by topics. You can get different reformed comments things >> there. Yeah, it is very helpful. There's an entire page called Aquinus versus reformed and it's not just as many people would think you know uh points of contradiction between Catholics and Protestants. It starts with you know scripture and then it gets into natural theology, uh the doctrine of God, attributes, trinity, predestination. So I mean there's there's my I guess what I'm saying with this there's no page you know comparing sorry uh no offense maybe there is one and I'm missing it but you know blessed Duncotus right or or or I don't know uh Peter Lombard but there is one for St. Thomas maybe there is and it's all the way in the bottom I just haven't scrolled that far but my point is I mean it seems like even Protestants have to acknowledge right like I guess the the genius the influence of St. Thomas. One last question. Um, and that way we can bridge over into talking about just the angelic doctor and his doctrine uh, and his influence. Uh, and you noted conversion just in general is basically I guess how is St. Thomas seen in the reformed world because I' I've never lived in the reformed world. I I know the only thing I know about it is reading here and there. Uh, but I don't know. I haven't been in a Protestant school. Basically, I haven't been in a Protestant environment. Right. So, is my assumption correct? I would I would assume they admire him a lot. obviously on predestination uh but you know that that's always comes up but on the doctrine of God very well respected uh and then on the other maybe points of contradiction is like ah well he got that wrong but is that kind of the general outlook on St. Thomas Protestant world.

[00:11:49]>> Yeah, that's really fair. Um, it's complex in the Protestant in the kind of conservative reform world. Um, there are Thomas fanboys and then there are people who are very worried about the Thomas fanboys.

[00:12:02]>> Yeah, I've seen those.

[00:12:03]>> You know, there are there I really didn't want to mention Van Hill on this interview, but you know, there there are those who are more Vanilian, if anyone here even knows what that means, who are very worried about the toists. But generally speaking, uh, you know, conservative Protestants, at least in my experience, who are interested in theology, kind of running the Richard Müller route, surfing the PRDL, like I was, recognized the reformed Orthodox certainly uh respected St. Thomas among other uh more contemporary reformed uh excuse me, as scholastic masters of the time. Um a lot of people would argue that many reformed orthodox are toist like that's an appropriate label to designate. There are books that are written you know toisism in John Owen toism and Peter Martyr Bernigly these sorts of things um you know I this is even even before becoming Catholic I I thought that was erroneous myself. um reformed orthodox uh of the period are extremely eclectic in their uh relationship to the high scholastics. Um if anything they are more suarezian andor scotistic. Uh but part of that as well we need to recognize is St. Thomas even among uh Catholic theologians of the time, even among the Catholic neoscolastics did not have the kind of I think pride of place uh this kind of almost exclusive pedestal pride of place that that he does maybe for us today maybe maybe postsine reser resurgence you know um Thomas was one one among uh many scholastic doctors who was extremely important and but even among among the great Thomas commentators uh during the Neoscalastic time period um who are now using Thomas's suma in place of Lombard Centi as like uh you know a a source text and upon which to do theology. The intention among at least a large number of those commentators, not all of course. This is where you have to sort through your Thomas commentators, but the intention is often not uh uh give the literal sense of Thomas and and you know defend his ration against the the insufficient arguments of Duncotus against him and these sorts of things.

[00:14:22]It's really replacing Lombard's centi um both the order of topics the general determination of what is the true part of the relevant contradiction and so on and then pushing further because St. Thomas has a lot of holes. St. Thomas has a lot of uh you know all the principial contradictions have been determined even before him but but but certainly by him as well all the main ones we would say and then largely there's scantia regarding uh the true parts of all those different contradictions so in other words Thomas is giving uh proper demonstrations even as is you know we want to qualify that yes okay but in other words strong arguments yielding firm ascent regarding the true part of all the major contradictions. Well, the scholastic project is uh pulling out the rest of the conclusions contained within those principles and then also uh comparing and contrast differing rationes uh and and and going going from there.

[00:15:21]And so um yeah, there's just a lot of variety in the scholastics. There's even much more variety among reformed orthodox of the time period where Thomas is viewed as certainly very respectable on issues of doctrine of God or Christologology. Um again those areas of agreement there's going to generally be appreciation uh greater appreciation for him on issues of holy scripture. He's generally I think again very wrongly but generally viewed is is rather friendly to like solar scripture or positions even like the reformed orthodox version of solar scripture before before it was a a watch word. Um you know so how he handles uh the literal sense and and the fact that okay you know symbolic theology doesn't argue and you always have to develop from the literal sense these sorts of things are generally being received among the reformed orthodox as friendly to reformed concerns. uh and so yeah today there is a lot of uh good uh resource in the contemporary reformed world I would say uh along areas where Thomas is going to be uniquely helpful and where Thomas uh at least not directly is going to uh uh he's not going to make you Catholic directly. So, you know, if you're going to start studying Thomas on Sotiology, you might you might be worried. But if you're just reading the first 27 questions or so, yeah, of Yes, it'll be okay.

[00:16:47]>> Nice. Okay, that was well put. Okay, so to bridge over, I guess over over to actually I guess >> so we're still kind of on the topic of conversion, but on the topic more of a titas, right? I read your brief article uh on your Substack that you know that's what you basically nailed it down to at the end of the article although you did say there were multiple reasons was the can you explain that for us uh what role does that play not just in your conversion but even today in other words the authorities of St. Thomas and was that like a motive of credibility for the Catholic faith for you or or was that some sort of just guiding principle in general that if you didn't understand something yourself or if you didn't if you didn't you know how you know there's there's faith there's uh science and there's opinion if maybe you had an opinion about something you preferred St. Thomas as always what was the role of that uh basically and even today as you read St. Thomas.

[00:17:37]>> Yeah, I mean that's that's a a complex set of questions. All good questions.

[00:17:41]>> Um >> yeah, there are a large number of rationes and there are a large number of octuratis as well >> um for for holding any sort of position.

[00:17:52]For me, what initially gave me confidence to push into Catholic position uh was the octurats of Thomas.

[00:18:02]If you want to class that as like a motive of credibility, I think that'd be that'd be correct. Uh again, you know, by definition, you you cannot I don't think Thomas's octuratas is sufficient for for divine faith even even as a kind of the sinquan sort of thing. Um so you need to become Catholic not just because Thomas says so, but right uh maybe because Thomas says so. uh when you're in a place where you have a lot of dubia, a lot of perplexities, a lot of uh you know, Aristotle calls perplexities so many ropes around the intellect that disable you from making any sort of uh forward progress because you're afraid. You're afraid that one part might be true or the other part might be true. And fear is the mind killer. And when fear is clouding the intellect, uh you're not able to see clearly. uh you're not able to field ration or field motives of credibility.

[00:18:56]You're not able to think clearly. You're in a state of unrest. And so oftent times I think the experience of a conversion at least my experience which might be a bit strange or unusual in its process and I don't want to say it's purity in the sense that it was glorious or something like that but but for me it was very very simply um I know St. Thomas is a Roman Catholic. Uh would be a Roman Catholic today because that's you know kind of a thing that Protestant might say is like well he was a Roman Catholic before their their their before the schism and things like that. No, Thomas would be a Roman Catholic today.

[00:19:33]There's no question about it. It's kind of silly to even ask that as a thing. Um well Thomas has never steered me wrong.

[00:19:40]Um I trust his octuratoss and initially I can resolve uh for my certitude of ascent uh to his octuratoss in order to start uh you know pinning down some of these main places of contradiction. But but even to say that uh I talk a lot to uh even various Protestants today who are considering becoming Catholic and and I often discourage them from proceeding uh in a kind of a way of thinking about Protestant Catholic disagreements which is very much at least from the Protestant perspective in my experience trying to determine a kind of sufficient set of of of positions where we we we disagree with each and making sure you put in the leg work and and satisfy intellectual justice and and put in enough research uh in order to, you know, make a judgment call that's that's well reasons. I don't think that's a good a good process at all. In fact, I think that's the wrong uh the the wrong approach to to determining these kinds of questions from the get-go. the right way of approaching is really uh motives of credibility uh who does have sufficient octurats to induce the scent of faith and so on and so forth. It's that kind of of of of thought line that you need to pursue. So even as I say uh asenting initially and and having the equivalent of opinent grounding upon Thomas's very very great octuratas but not infallible octurats is not God's octuratas. um at least having a kind of loose ascent about the body of Roman Catholic propositions was then able to um start to make headway in in looking for other motives of credibility and and and going going from there. Um so yeah, that that was very important for me and uh really the tipping point and so I identified that for people as really what happened really the cause.

[00:21:46]uh it was the the octtos of Thomas but there are of course many other causes and many other components to the story um just like you know any reasonable person would expect. Uh yeah.

[00:21:58]>> Okay. And even as as we separate even so I do want to say something for the audience. Um okay guys try to keep the questions related to the angelic doctor. Um because there are plenty of videos out on YouTube talking about conversion stories for pro from Protestantism to Catholicism. It's kind of what we do in the Catholic church but there's not a lot really on on St. Thomas. I mean there might be you know theistic institute and whatever but try to keep it focused on that. We did have a question. Someone paid $10 for it and it's it's going to it's going to ask about your conversion. So, we can answer it at the end. Uh or you you can just get with him privately afterwards if you don't want to talk about it here. Um but thank you Michael for the super chat guys. Um what I do want to say is though send questions related to you know St. Thomas, his theology, his doctrine and also if you guys are watching make sure to like the video because you know the algorithm will will do its thing. Um, okay Ryan. So, uh, I guess, okay, so you assessed, you identified St. Thomas's toas, but what was the topic really that you would that you know, I guess that you found it most in because you said he's never led you in the wrong or he's never he's never, you know, what does that even mean? How do you even how can you be so sure of that? And in what topic were you reading just through his entire I know the answer because you kind of told me, but through his entire suma or was it a specific topic? Uh, yeah.

[00:23:16]>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean doctrine of God uh is is my area of primary focus um where I've definitely gone deepest.

[00:23:23]>> This is and this is are you talking about just for the audience God as the author of nature like the de Uno or God as one and also the triune God.

[00:23:32]>> Um I started out really uh focusing on the trinity. In fact, I wanted to write my dissertation on uh relations as the the principle of real distinction of divine persons by contrast to in theory origin. It's this kind of um a lot of people view Bonmanura and Thomas as somehow contrary. They're certainly not contrary on such a fundamental issue, but at least uh different shall we say uh on what takes the lead conceptually on distinguishing divine persons. Are they distinguished primarily by way of origin or primarily by way of relation?

[00:24:04]That's very reductive way of handling.

[00:24:05]There actually five or six different scholastic opinions on what again what takes the lead. Thomas of course champions the opposition of relations uh as the the the the conceptual point at which uh you the formality spits out real distinction the mind can't resolve back into simplicity but uh yeah it was especially DDo uno stuff more and more as time went on u but for me like I study scholastic method and how scholastic method works um in the in the kind of field of ration and o and and octtos. So octuritas I I'm sure your audience is very very familiar with octuratas but I always feel the need to to uh to explain what I mean by by octuras because I think even a lot of people they translate it into English as authority which of course is really the only close word that we have. Um I think it's better something like reputability would be a closer English. But octoas for the fathers and for medievals uh is kind of a broader quality uh that uh is uh belongs to persons. So it does not belong to texts. For example uh it doesn't really make sense to talk about the octuratas of holy scripture except in a very very derivative way. It's a property that belongs to authors of texts and only by proxy or derivation to those texts. So there's just those sorts of things. But octuras is a is a kind of quality of persons that's comprised of both their their knowledge or expertise in a in a field in a science and then their moral goodness. And both those both those elements together are uh essential uh qualities.

[00:25:57]um to have a listener who is usually a student. Student student teacher relationships always work by way of octuratas even if it's only a little bit of octtos but that octuratas is what the student is initially reverting uh to as the principle uh to firm whatever conclusion or whatever ascent he's making. So rather than revert to first principles of intellect, rather than revert to first principles of the of the science or or any kind of ratio, we're reverting to this quality in a person that solidifies ascent and grounds ascent and and and and makes you certain. We we talk about certainty today. Thomas would prefer firmness.

[00:26:46]Certitude for him is the firmness of intellect which arises under the power of of a principle that kind of foists you down and pins you to a certain part of contradiction. So this quality octuratas is kind of twofold quality octuratas. Well knowledge is what ensures for the firmness. It kind of comprises for the firmness that the person is not deceived as they attest to you. And then the moral goodness is how is what ensures that they don't actually deceive you as they as they speak to you. And both of those are necessary.

[00:27:19]Both of them need to come together. But that's the that's the that's the ontology of a scent uh an ascent of faith natural faith here just initially that that uh you know we usually call this opin just kind of the super category for for like loose ascent that an ascent that doesn't boil back to a first principle of intellect in some way shape or form kind of an interruption in the causal reversion chain >> but anyway so a lot of theological arguments in the history and development of doctrine say just in doctrine of God uh initially function by way of octuras. Of course we know that there are a whole set of truths that we can only ascend to by way of octuritas. These are supernatural truths primarily to do with you know the holy trinity. But even for the natural truths um most of development of doctrine uh you know as as doctrine development it was by way of arguments extortitate arguments whose uh force for their certitude ultimately comes from the reality that is the octuratoss of an expert a moral expert not just uh an expert who could who could hoodwink you like we we we are often plagued by experts today. But >> yeah, >> a sage really, it's a sage.

[00:28:42]>> Okay. So, as scholasticism comes to the four, um, more and more theologians are wanting to not just certify by way of octuratos, but they're wanting to certify in so far as is possible by way of ratios. And this might uh like operate within an overarching system of octurats. a set of supernatural truths.

[00:29:05]When you enter Lombard Sententi, you open it up. Well, he's not beginning with the Deo Uno. Of course, it's a, you know, bit of a false category anyway, but nonetheless, he's not beginning with the Deo Uno. He's setting out first principles uh of of of that that a Catholic ascends to uh by way of supernatural octuras. Yes. Okay. There's a lot of trinity to do right up front, but having accepted those principles as true. Yeah.

[00:29:33]>> Okay. So the the the the what ensures though you know the connection and the division of the various intellectual uh judgments that you make what ensures that uh you know you ought to ascend to those those are indeed true is octuritas. But after you accept them then you start pulling from them and you pull by way of syllogism primarily and and you starting to to use ratios and these aren't >> arguments that involve ratio. arguments is of course a little bit of a broader term anyway but the point is the force of the argument rests ultimately on the prior to tons you accept okay well as time goes on more and more for at least the truths where this is possible theologians are wanting to no longer rely upon octuras but actually give reasons whether plausible ration or ultimately the prized demonstrative ones that yields scantia the quality of mind bearing upon on you know the concluded proposition that altogether locks you down. It's really the focus of St. Thomas. Thomas is Tom if there's any goal that Thomas has it's to it's not just to like populate the field of of true parts of various contradictions but it's to actually give the sort of ration and order the kinds of uh you know unfolding of doctrine such that you have maximal scientia about the maximal number of propositions and that scantia kind you can have multiple kinds of scientia depending on different demonstrations that you're you're running from different sorts of first principles and so on. Anyway, so as theology develops, you start to um lean away from octuratoss and be able to conclude things properly speaking as we mean conclusions whether they are merely from topics or ultimately from the first principles of science. What does all this have to do with developing a healthy respect for the octuratoss of St. Thomas? Well, in the process of learning and my experience uh experiencing that initial I ascent to a proposition on the basis of the fact that St. Thomas holds it and therefore my certitude rests on his octtos. I accept that but then I start to pursue ration or rational arguments the intellectual grounds bearing upon that that proposition and more and more am able at least for those propositions that that you can escape the you know the octto uh I'm more and more able to conclude those properly speaking to have to no longer have to rest upon a decision of will to ascent to to to a truth but to see that truth in in the light of a principle and to ascent to it merely on account of such and that's really the learning process that's a development process but it also reinforces on the on the backside the the reliability of St. Thomas that his octos was good because sometimes some look look you know a person can have all the octtoas in the world and yet still make an error >> right >> but over time as you verify for lack of better terms your your perspective towards Thomas as a reliable guide to truth intensifies and I think what what's really happening there you know older petristics someone like a St. Augustine has to treat octuratas much in a much squishier way than scholastics do.

[00:33:09]Octoass is like aura. I think I think the kids I don't know. I think the kids today talk about aura. I don't really know what aura exactly is, but I think maybe maybe there's an analogy proportionality. John here.

[00:33:20]>> Are you saying that's how are you saying that's kind of how St. Augustine uses the word?

[00:33:23]>> Yeah. Octuritan is a very Roman thing.

[00:33:25]It's like a senator who has so much oomph and he has a deep voice and he's a big dude >> and he's able to move people. So, octuratas is much more than just knowledge and moral goodness. It's like it's like this this aura that someone has. And and really what I think that is is um not just the ontological elements that are proper to the person, but also what the listener brings to the table as they kind of octuras is kind of constructed between two people. Um and it's again it's just this much squishier thing in in the fathers and kind of more Roman world and scholastics it becomes hardened in this these >> false knowledge and moral goodness.

[00:34:11]>> Yeah. Well for for St. Augustine if I could comment briefly on that. I mean I know he uses it a lot against the man the manacheans.

[00:34:17]>> He uses it a lot against the manacheans and basically explaining his conversion to the Catholic faith. Uh and that's when that's when he brings in the motives of credibility. Yeah. Um, but I think there's a there's some sort of uh overlap there because you're saying that the Octto St. Thomas comes partly from just his reputability, >> right? And that's kind of what St. Augustine goes to for the Catholic Church as well, basically her reputability in the world. Not necessarily that, you know, those because obviously there's going to be enemies of the Catholic Church who aren't going to, you know, count her as reputable. But when you look across the nations, when you look across the cultures that converted, when you look across even in this time some parts of the empire or sorry of the world, uh there is that reputability. So I think there isn't an overlap there. But I can't say I'm an expert uh of how St. Augustine uses it outside of the Manachian uh >> uh but I think from my point is from what I've read against his Manacheans or his works against the Manakans, I think that is spot on what you said. aura.

[00:35:14]>> I think I think octoas sweeps in a lot of what we now distinguish as motives of credibility in within its causal force.

[00:35:22]So it's like it's octuratas is the magic answer for why you why you as a listener asented to me. Well, why did you ascent to me? It's because you think I'm cool.

[00:35:34]It's because you've had a lot of life experience with me. It's because yeah proven knowledge more more like like all those different things are under the hub of octuras and that starts to solidify and become more philosophically precisioned as oh what really when when we're talking about what what counts as a rational or prudential uh decision to ascent to someone on the basis of their testimony. You really need not just because they're cool. you really need okay is more philosophically refined. So I think over time uh it hardens and we start splitting out motives of credibility but in the early in in in the fathers >> yeah it seems like a much wider category to me but >> yeah or I mean something that St. Augustine says for Jesus, right, is he he explicitly says by his miracles he gained authority and by his authority he gained faith. That's explicitly what he says there. So >> yeah. Well uh Okay. But can you talk a little bit more about I guess the doctrine of God? Do you want to get into specifics of St. Thomas or what would you like to kind of talk about that there?

[00:36:38]>> It's up to you. I mean we can talk about doctrine of God all night long.

[00:36:41]>> How about this? So since you're so much into it. Okay. Well, it's easy to say I'm going to follow St. Thomas wherever he leads me. But as great as he is, there are simply times when I don't understand what he's saying. So I will go to his commentators or maybe I'll ask Christian Wagner what he means. But but uh uh I you know I'll go by the octo of Christian Wagner. Uh but but uh I guess what what what did you do when you didn't know what St. Thomas was saying?

[00:37:04]Or if you you know maybe there I guess another separate question. Was there ever a time where you're like okay I don't really uh I I understand what he's saying but I don't really think he's spot on here. Uh did you go to other commentators who maybe >> always get out of jail free cards? Don't don't don't forget.

[00:37:19]>> Were there any Thomas explainers St. Thomas explainers you know who who uh or who basically explained what he was trying to say better. Uh and I guess okay this I don't I know there's a lot and we can we can go down the line later. Uh but I guess it's not only the suma because like if I if I'm reading St. Thomas and I don't understand what he's saying. I know that it's not just oh tjapar's you know question whatever but I know that he's treated this elsewhere in the sentences there's deallo there's all these other works where I can go and see where he's written about this as well. If that didn't cut it, who did you go to, I guess, if you just didn't understand what I think Thomas is saying?

[00:37:53]>> Um, I mean, the Suma is tricky because the Suma is is Thomas writing for students >> and he is he's he's he's Thomas at he's just pitching it super low. Um so much of his work in the suma um I think actually underserves uh well suma is written for students. You really need to understand that. I think a lot of people underestimate just how true that is. There's also the case that even in the suma Thomas is not always giving his own opinion and he doesn't tell you this. This is a scholastic ultimately it's a petristic practice that is the you know the bane of all petristic interpreters but it's also a heavy scholastic practice as well. The author will not give you any uh aditum indication that he is switching into recording mode >> but he will simply write down uh the proposition and seem to assert it in his in his uh phrasing. um but he does not uh ascent to it. Uh he perhaps only loosely ascends to it. So it's he's opining to it. Um this is for a large number of reasons. Even Kajitanis uh in ST1q21, you guys can go look this up. It's a great debate. Kajanas has this big debate with with with BZ over um it's ST1Q21 uh A1 add AD I think it's ad two uh it's where Thomas says oh there are other well he seems to say he well he does say explicitly there are there are uh various uh moral virtues about operations besides ustitia there's ma magnificence there's liberality uh and he goes on he say well Katana says there don't forget Thomas is not reciting his own opinion here he gives his opinion later on in the suma and what Thomas says here is not quite correct and therefore kagitanis rejects that bas gets all over him and it's it's a fun time so that's in the suma okay that's in doctrine of god part of the suma this phenomenon is uh often underestimated uh and then it even more characteristic when you boil back to like the sentence commentary. So there's a lot of tricks to be aware of that make it somewhat difficult sometime to not just interpret and apprehend the intellectuals of Thomas is saying which is typically not so hard because Thomas is like every scholastic is trying to write as proper formally as possible as Kitana says Thomas always says things most formally. Okay. So what scholastics are trying to do is mirror in scholastic Latin as one to one as possible their outer sayings with their inner judgments such that it's basically a mirror inside their head and you never have any trouble at least if you're fluent with fluent in in in in scholastic Latin and you and you know you're conversant with you know the primary significations of predicate terms and so on um you ought never have a real trouble with apprehending the intellectuality as or the sense Thomas calls it the sense of of Thomas's sayings. Well, okay. Yeah, maybe if you're fluent scholastic Latin, you don't have that trouble. But uh us normies, we have more of that trouble uh more frequently. But even when you do apprehend that intellectuals, you need to recognize, okay, what's Thomas's epistemic posture towards this judgment?

[00:41:43]Uh does he firmly hold it? Is it provisional? Is it reciting another person's opinion? you know, that's much rare as you go later in Thomas and you're more of the magisterial, you know, the de patentia, those sorts of things. But in the sentence commentary, my goodness, it's all over the place.

[00:41:59]And a lot of the uh internal uh at least apparent contradictions in St. Thomas's corpus that you will find are resolved in various modes. And uh one of those modes is yeah claiming claiming that you know he wasn't giving what he thought or maybe he gave what he thought and he changed his mind because he also does that. Uh it's you know fairly rare and he usually tells you explicitly although I wrote otherwise in the same commentary I now hold and so on and so forth. So he does that. Um, but as far as like how to apprehend the angelic doctor's mind, for me, um, I spent years just reading Thomas.

[00:42:42]And that's not perhaps good and wise for everybody, but I had just reading on repeat the sentence commentary, Dave Patentia and Dearatate.

[00:42:52]Uh, and then the Suma. Uh, I did a far far less work on the Suma contrient. I I really for a very long time struggled with that. It didn't it didn't the it it's the the the way the work is all you know it's probably because I'm weaker in syllogisms. I didn't study formal logic when I should have as a teenager and and so on. Um so okay the SCG is all about giving you multiple multiple avenues for ciia about a set of propositions ultimately coming from first principle stipulated first principle which is Aristotle's God is the the alltogether unmoved. So Thomas stipulates an SC1C14.

[00:43:31]So I didn't really study the SCG a ton, but I was reading dayop just on repeat and deante and then the sentence commentary just on repeat and then uh more and more of the suma. And what I found was it is a helpful practice uh to read such large chunks on repeat. I tend to focus on one major topic and read across you know all the experesses treatments um okay >> just over multiple weeks uh to because the often later things illumine earlier things and so on and so forth >> but apart from that I found I I love the the the later Thomas commentators I'm more more in the neosastic range you know Lrange is is is amazing but I I cut my teeth on BZ as Captain Tan and uh those kinds of guys. Um I'm still I'm slow you I'm slowly getting up to the 19th 20th century. Um but I I found that even even often more than uh the great commentators the great and trusted commentators um it's been most helpful for me to understand St. Thomas to study his sources. Uh even in in his immediate sources, his immediate interloculars, uh a lot of Arabic tradition, Thomas is is is just copy pasting from abenna and doctrine of God. So so much. And if you don't if you're not fluent with a you see I I I I have a friend who who's more much more of an expert on Arabic theology than I am. I'm certain expert but uh I I pronounce it Avacennena because I only know the Latin Avacenna because I I read the the critical edition of the Latin you know the Latin that Thomas read but reading that reading uh mmonities uh Thomas is so much monades both positively and then he's resisting he's in doctrine of God so I'm talking about a lot >> um I mean on prophecy Thomas is just copy pasting from um but yeah reading you got to make sure you're reading Lombard art. Uh, Albert Magnus is very helpful. I so I I read a lot of the earlier guys and and get my head around the actual scholastic conversation as Thomas was having it.

[00:45:49]And I find that that is often even more helpful uh than reading later commentators who are often doing different things. Not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying they are actualizing what is only virtual in Thomas or they're responding to different problems. you know, controversies, pmics and so on. Um, you got to pick your commentators carefully, those who actually claim to be giving the literal sense of Thomas, the classic ones like Cathanis, obviously. Um, but yeah, I I I I don't recommend going to read Vasquez in order to understand St. Thomas's suma. I do read Vasquez. I think it's important to read, but they're not giving aditum commentaries on Thomas's ST. they're doing they're they're using as a prompt to argue their own theologies.

[00:46:39]>> That's right. That's true. Yeah. I remember I remember reaching out to uh to Christian once because St. Alonsus actually claimed St. Thomas for a certain like proposition or like a certain position and I was like what like like St. Thomas clearly denies this. It was I think it was basically on on the credibility by faith of theological conclusions because the toe is told that >> Thomas isn't even operating like that's >> well yeah and I mean I think there's obviously but >> what was that go ahead >> he has things to say about that obviously but it is I mean >> well I think father solo makes a good case you know that the from what the later toists are the position that they take you know going back to St. Thomas but I I think there's a good case to be made for St. Thomas but even then I mean uh his I think St. Alons's words were on the immaculate conception because prior to the definition he was saying you know and because we have demonstrated you know uh theologically that it's true following St. Thomas we can ascend by divine faith even if it hasn't been I'm like he doesn't St. Thomas doesn't say this like why does he say this and Christian's like because everybody wants St. Thomas to agree with them. That's >> he's got aura. I'm telling you what he's going to say.

[00:47:53]>> Exactly. Exactly.

[00:47:55]>> Okay. Okay. Um let's see here. So any other topic besides doctrine of God? I'm pretty I I guess when I was coming into the Catholic Church, uh St. Thomas was in a sense a motive of credibility for me. I didn't know too much about, you know, just the the church fathers and the saints. Um, so I didn't really I hadn't really made a classification in my head of like, okay, these are the apostolic fathers, these are the pre- nyine, these are the postnine fathers, and these are the early medievals, here are the scholastics. I just my friend uh actually he was um the you know, do you know Ed Faser?

[00:48:28]>> Yeah, of course.

[00:48:29]>> Yeah. So I don't know him personally, >> but basically one of his one of his sons was a close friend of mine. And so that's how I got that's how I got into you know the timistic uh or just reading St. Thomas at first. Um, and when I was converting and I had a bunch of questions. I was also agnostic beforehand. So, faith and reason were like a big thing for me to kind of reconcile >> and but one of the things that I Oh, go ahead.

[00:48:51]>> Thomas is really great for for for that.

[00:48:53]But, yeah.

[00:48:54]>> And so, one of the things that was really helpful for me though, not so much uh very, you know, not really on faith and reason, but basically on the rights of the church and like sacraments, just understanding because I think St. Augustine says right like to have a I forgot his ex exact words but like to have a religion you're going to have to have some sort of ceremony some sort of sacraments and really understanding I at first I started watching the toistic institute videos where it's like nice very nice graphics and they'll break it down and it's like I was like what is this and I was just fascinated by the way that they were breaking down you know into the the race at Sacramentoum right the race tonsum the sacmentum tum and then when I was actually going to go and read St. Thomas and the Suma. I didn't I didn't even know what, you know, the sentences was at that time. I didn't even know what what uh that he had wrote a commentary on that, but I was just I knew what the suma was and I was reading it through and I saw how systematic it was. And I have to admit in a sense um maybe maybe some of this was partly gullible, but I think there was a real motive of credibility there, if you want to put that in in all lowercase, of like this is so organized and it's just so consistent that like this has to be there's some truth to this. I'm not saying this is like this this you know I'm not even saying this as like oh the only Catholicism could ever have this or whatever but it was just attractive. It just had all right it had octtoas right especially in the way that St. Thomas was was writing about it and it just made sense and it's weird because there is there is a there's you know there's faith and you can't prove the divine mysteries um like the trinity or the the you know which sacraments are going to be instituted by God. you know, you don't know that by by natural reason, but at the same time, after you understand or after you accept them by faith, um you'll never understand from natural principles of trinity. But there is some sort of coherence and harmony in the entire Catholic religion. And nobody does that better than I'm saying nobody does that better than I think St. Thomas from what I've been able to read. What were you saying?

[00:50:46]>> It's the nexus mysterio or >> So So what other topic? I really liked St. Thomas on the sacraments when I was coming into the church from being like just an agnostic. I didn't have like a Protestant background or anything. Uh what other topics besides doctrine of God do you think you really?

[00:51:01]>> I mean I did I did a lot on sentences of holy scripture and that was also one of the main pressure points uh for me you know so as a as a good former Protestant as a good Baptist boy uh wanting to do justice to the sacred page uh is very important. It's always been important to fathers the great doctors of the church. It's important. It's it it ought to be equally important to Catholics and and officially it is of course faithful Catholics it ought to be. Um but coming from a Baptist perspective, a Protestant perspective, a very literalist, very biblicist background, wanting to do justice the sacred page um was something and it always I'm very thankful for having that background. um respect for the authority of God's word is how how Protestant would be um well as you press doctrine of God. So doctrine of God is really like a a litmus test for me that congregates a large number of difficult issues. So one of those issues is the fact that well vast majority of concrete sayings in holy scripture are not proper formal certainly regard God or metaphor improper location >> so on and so forth and you know monodities is really so Thomas again copy paste so much >> uh but mmanities is not afraid to be open about the apparent conflict between the concrete sayings of Holy Scripture and you know Arisilian propositions that we know to be true say or just say scholastic propositions uh doctrine of God is is again a real real major litmus test.

[00:52:57]So um faced with that I I've done a lot of work on the senses of holy scripture and what what Thomas means by a sense of holy scripture and what are the different kinds of literal senses and spiritual senses and so on and then also how that uh differs uh from Petristics talk about adlitterum senses and not understanding sundumarum and all those sorts of things and this goes also So part and parcel with just generally the scholastic project and even talking about interpreting St. Thomas is well there there's such a thing as pious exposition and you go read the sentence commentary and on every distinction Lombard you have octuritates which are proof texts roughly speaking paragraphs from the fathers that we ascent to by virtue of their own personal octuratas and we call the concrete utterance in octuras and authority of proof texts.

[00:53:57]Well, you have those in favor of what's actually the true part of contradiction, and that's well and good. But octuras is a wax nose. That is to say, a proof text can be bent either in favor of a true part or a false part. And someone like Avalard is really, really aggressive about lining up various sayings of the fathers and noting that they are explicitly at loggerheads across the board. If you look at the wall of Manet and you were able to snip up all little bits of Manet, you could populate the universe of propositions, a universe of contradictions on both side of the propositions all the way across the board. It's astounding.

[00:54:42]>> Yeah.

[00:54:42]>> And it's frightening. It's scary. And so learning principles of interpretation which also by the way is really interesting from a Catholic perspective because >> uh I think this is one area of real uh you know so Newman's favorite say famous saying to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. Why is that at least plausible to a Catholic but ridiculous from a Protestant's perspective? Why are there Protestant prologists who read maybe the same amount of St. Augustine as a Catholic prologist, but are coming up with radically different conclusions as to what Augustine ascends to and using Augustine, you know, again, whether it's true or whether it's false is kind of begging the question here, but using Augustine in favor of Protestant positions. Why? How how is that occurring? And how do we make sense out of just uh the Petristic mess?

[00:55:44]Petristics the the venerable fathers are are everything for us but their corpus is crazy and how do we make sense of that well it's not more data we don't need more more more quote mining we don't need chat GBT to run searches rather you need proper principles of interpretation you all this is also why it's so important to not merely conclude propositions x octtoate you got to start doing it by way Ratzio, I don't want to start saying natural reason here because that gets us into weird messes, but point being um you have to have a method of approaching the fathers that ultimately looks like the scholastic method of approaching the fathers. And what we found is that there were reliables bodies of scholastic theologians who combed through the wall of minier who mined the fathers who are deeply aware of all the troubling authorities and every bachelor of Lombard going through the sentences.

[00:56:46]Again, not only does he use octuratas to prove the truth, but then he immediately lists a whole bunch of troubling or disturbing authorities that now you have to piously interpret and you have to figure out how to do that in a way that does justice to the explicit letter on the page that uh is also uh operating from a place of piety. Okay, so that's very important as well. You can't be going about this like one of Noah's sons who's laughing at his nakedness here. No, this is this is not how we treat the fathers, >> right? We piously piously expositing is not is not bullshitting. Am I allowed to say that? I apologize. There's not no other word word I can I can come up with here. It's it's a very disciplined process. So all that to say doing that also with holy scripture because a lot of say Lombard's troubling authorities disturbing authorities are the very authorities of found in holy scripture and part of the problem that the fathers are problematic is because they're speaking in the language of holy scripture which is not designed to do scholastic theology. So the senses of holy scripture for me were really fundamental in learning how to properly interpret the sacred page in a way that apprehends the intellectuals, not the meaning of the text as we say crazily today, the the the the judgment, the intellectual version of the proposition.

[00:58:21]Yes. And then the credence posture that you ought to have or that the sacred author is is asking you to have because that's the other thing is there are lots of propositions in holy scripture that uh well you can apprehend the proposition but you better not ascent to it because it's technically false.

[00:58:39]Ecclesiastes being the uh typical classic case and point being cited as one of those uh main books that you got to watch out because an awful lot of the positions argued for by the author are false. This is a technique that he's doing. He's adopting different things and he's running to the ground. You got to be aware because those phenomena phenomena exist in holy scripture. Okay.

[00:59:07]So you approach that doing justice to the letter of sacred scripture. All of this for me um amounted to holy scripture not being very prospicuous if I can put it that way. And so yeah uh that was a very important uh focus of mine that also involved yeah my conversion I suppose.

[00:59:30]>> I couldn't get that last part. It involved what?

[00:59:33]>> Uh it impacted my my eventual conversion as well I suppose. Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha.

[00:59:37]Okay. Cool. Well, nothing else comes to mind. Is there anything else you want to talk about? Um, I guess I have a few. We didn't get too many questions. There is that question from Michael. I don't know if you want to answer it now or if you want to get with Michael uh privately after this, but it's the question of concupisence uh and Catholic justification. Is that something you want to talk about now or talk about it later with Michael?

[00:59:57]>> I mean, I I I'm I'm sorry for to to Michael. Maybe we can chat privately. I I don't really know much about computense, so it's not my area.

[01:00:06]>> Yeah, I try and stick to my lane here, and if I don't know, I don't know.

[01:00:10]>> That's fair. Fair enough.

[01:00:12]>> Sorry.

[01:00:12]>> Plenty of people don't. Okay. Uh well, I got this very nice comment. Uh I was received into the Catholic Church last year with St. Thomas as my patron. Uh I'm deeply grateful for Herd's part in that intellectual journey. Okay.

[01:00:27]Uh let me see. We got a lot of questions about your about Protestantism. This isn't so much about your conversion, so I think this is fine.

[01:00:34]>> Yeah.

[01:00:34]>> Um, as an ex-protestant, can Professor Herd maybe tell us how Catholics should protest, >> this is uh I guess a typo or something.

[01:00:44]Uh, how Catholics should Protestants what should be the argument and what is un underutilized.

[01:00:50]>> So, I think you get the question even though it's very poorly.

[01:00:55]>> Such a such a difficult such a pressing question.

[01:00:59]um you know outside the church there's no salvation is a real principle.

[01:01:09]Uh sometimes we dilute that by exceptions.

[01:01:15]They're not really exceptions. They're you know qualifications of that of that universal principle. But Protestant evangelizing uh from a Catholic perspective is super important but it's also very difficult.

[01:01:27]Um and I say that with knowledge, trust me. So I think one issue is there are just such a large variety of different Protestants plural, different Protestant denominations. Uh it's very difficult to give a kind of generalized uh you know this is this is how to approach a Protestant. Um that would be just a foolardy task. Generally I come from conservative Protestantism and in conservative Protestantism which I personally think is tends to be the best the best Protestantism. I'm very thankful for what the Lord was kind to me and my my childhood. Um but generally conservative Protestants still have a lot of aggressive caricatures about the Catholic faith that are at the level of fantasm. Uh I I mentioned fantasm, you know, not trying to be obnoxious here, but I think we underestimate the nature of fantasm as genuinely disabling interlocutors from really understanding what the other person is saying. And when you're a Protestant, you have such habituated imaginations and mental positions and so on that no matter how good of a Catholic, you know, the person in front of you is, no matter how convincing they are that Catholics don't worship Mary, Catholics don't believe in work salvation. Uh you know the various the various characters. no matter how convincing you are, um you will not be heard because there's a fantasm problem.

[01:03:06]So, learning how to break that down is is really difficult, really tricky, but recognizing there's a lot of work to do just at the level of caricature, at least in my experience. Um I think I think a lot of Catholics would be surprised at how caricatured their their position is among Protestants. And from my perspective, um, many prot invincible ignorance sort of situation where many Protestants so clearly and firmly hold Catholics are idolatrous or or even you know even worse things if there are worse things um that the only right response with that as your prior is to firmly reject Catholicism. So um I think a lot of Protestants are behaving uh intellectually credentially correct on their priors and attacking those priors attacking those priors in a in a way that is actually profitable and able to be heard is really really important.

[01:04:09]However, at the end of the day, uh apart from dealing with real caricatures, um I really firmly believe that the way to bring people into the Catholic Church the right way, there are lots of ways that might work, but the right way is not more argument, not more data, not more apologetics as we often have that term bandied about. I know probably different different your listeners here. And what I mean by that and I say that is someone who tries to be an intellectual who who really values intellectual arguments uh quite a lot. But I really do believe that the process of motives and credibility and that kind of question of who ought you to believe what does it mean for credentially making a decision regarding religious alternatives those sorts of things. So I I pulled up Lrange's de Revolion uh de Revolion as the way uh I I think that that is the way to argue um and and also what will actually move the needle uh for people. Um so yeah, dealing with caricatures uh and then uh not making fake arguments.

[01:05:28]Hopefully that's not harsh.

[01:05:31]>> Nice. Yeah, know that was great and I agree. I think uh Lrange, Father Lrange's D Latuna is fantastic. Um, okay. I guess I had a one last question for you since people I guess did not show up with questions today, which I guess is fine. By the way, guys, did you audience, did you guys know that we're on a record because last time I had Father Joseph Corolla on and that was his first ever live stream. He said he was never he had never ever been live before. He's done plenty of videos but never live. And I'm actually Ryan's first live stream as well today.

[01:06:03]>> That's right.

[01:06:03]>> So I think the next guest the next guest is another Ryan but Ryan Grant. You know Ryan Grant.

[01:06:11]>> He's a translator of uh a bunch of the Bell St. Robert Bellerine uh >> works. Um although he's not going to be okay. He's not going to be live. It's gonna be pre-recorded I think. So well I'm trying to I'm trying to think who my next Okay. My sorry my next live is going to be Alan Rule who's a historian and he's definitely been live a million times. So, we're breaking the record unfortunately for first time lives, but two is pretty good. So, what do you think of your first live? I mean, it was Was it scary? Wasn't as scary as you thought it was going to be. Did you?

[01:06:37]>> Well, I don't I don't know the YouTube world. I I my nose is deep in 13th century scholastic text, so I I don't know how these things go.

[01:06:46]>> Yeah.

[01:06:46]>> Okay. Well, I guess my last question for you was on the question of the doctrine of God. There's obviously uh we we kind of touched upon this how um uh we talked we talked about this a little bit you know how other theologians are going to claim St. Thomas for themselves to kind of advance their position like Basquez or whatever.

[01:07:04]Um what do you find I guess maybe do you find it interesting to kind of like see where maybe Suarez Basquez maybe even uh I don't know just later later scholastics you know aired on the on the doctrine of God uh tried to use St. Thomas for their position and then just kind of reading St. Thomas again to see like no this is why they're wrong because I know there's a lot of issues on the doc I'm no expert on the doctrine of God but I just know that there are issues where other theologians will differ from St. Thomas, but we'll claim him anyway.

[01:07:35]>> Yeah. I mean, I'm very interested in in the the larger perspective. So, so much of Scholasticism is very very >> nitpicky >> propositions. Okay. Determine your predicate term and make sure you you have the correct, you know, all these different things. But I really like the the the more superarching uh different theological methods. And I do think there are some pretty aggressively different theological methods that broadly represented by scholastics and and more neoscolastic authors. Uh and it has a lot to do with um issues of whether we can have intrinsic denomination of God, what kinds of predicate terms amount to intrinsic denomination. So there's kind of a neoscolastic tick that you find everyone wants to take the predicate term remove the imperfection, retain the perfection, and they're going to keep keep running that kind of Ancelmian uh Ancelian principle until they get some kind of micro fragment of perfection and then they're go put that in God because of course all and and and and the goal is to generate and and somehow support a proper formal proposition. So the idea is if we can just run this this this definition we can just make enough distinctions to put part of it some sort of part of it well you know there's qualification has to be more with the specific difference or more formal and so all these different things but the point is it's a tendency it's a very interesting tendency you don't find that tendency in in in in high scholastics obviously that principle is there I mean there are plenty of top there are plenty of places in Thomas that I can bring you to where he uh explicitly performed forms uh that principle and you know remove retain is you know almost a direct quotation from Thomas and lots of predicate terms day Q2A1 I think it's ad four is where he starts doing it with the the predicate term skeia he doesn't tell you in the rest vono it's really obnoxious that well skeia might be properly formally set of god but it's only subsequent to the fact of removing what is material or what what is part of its generic concept and so on anyway so That's an interesting tick that necolastics like to do and even really good to like John of St. Thomas and so on. And it's very different from high medievals. Well, what does that methodological difference represent? Um what is its output? Why why is it happening? What are its causes? Those sorts of things. So I do I do like to ask those kinds of questions and I'm still pursuing. I think it's partly to do with um pressures pressures to uh uh renewed pressures uh by virtue of holy scripture coming in coming into play in a different way than it had in in earlier scholasticism. Um part of that is due to Protestant controversies and so on. So all of a sudden, you know, it's very very bad for the vast majority of scriptural sayings to be not proper formal. That's not good from scholastic perspective. Whereas from earlier scholasticism, it's like yes, this is obvious. We all knew this. which is why uh arguing from scripture involves just very tiny little lines of text that are accepted as you know at least when they're read proper formally they can they can support the the true part of the contradiction. But anyway, those are the sorts of things I like to I like to think about and keep my eye on.

[01:11:12]>> Okay, nice. Well, Ryan, I have nothing else. Uh there was one question here in the comments, but I think it has nothing to do with this and I don't even know the answer to it. I've wondered this myself, but I've never looked into it.

[01:11:21]Basically, um it seems like in 2 Samuel 12, King David expect to see his own baby in heaven. How do we square that with the uh with basically with the limbo and unbaptized babies? I don't know the answer to it. I've thought about it before. I'm sure there's I'm sure there's a Locust Classicus somewhere out there and either a commentary on St. Thomas or the sentences or just >> just general treaties on on baptism and or maybe just the four last things that will answer this. But what I always say is if I don't know the answer to something, I tell people to email me and I will look for an I I will look where to find the answer. So >> Okay. I I assume you don't have an answer. I really don't know. It's a very good question. I I've wondered it before and I've never looked into it. So, okay, Ryan, this was a blessing. This is very insightful and I think people are going to get a lot out of this. Thank you very much. Would you like people to to know where to find you on your Substack?

[01:12:11]Right, because you're writing quite a bit now. I know you said you you wanted, you know, you wanted more pick up kind of a more of a follower based on Substack recently. So, where can people find you?

[01:12:19]>> Uh, yeah. So, uh, my my Substack is quite a limited Tobogia. Um, you can just search my name, RM. I think it's RM Herd. There's another Ryan Herd who's a scholar. I think he's like a dreamologist. I don't even really know what that is. So, all my scholarly work is RM Herd. Um, but yeah, I I do a lot of writing on there. I've not been doing so much the last couple of weeks, the last few weeks because I'm trying to finish my dissertation. So, >> okay. A little bit on pause on Yep, there it is. So, >> and can you share what that dissertation is on or would you rather?

[01:12:53]>> Uh, yeah. So, it's it's on uh miserordia uh >> right more rightly, you know, usually translated as mercy of God obviously, but better translated in this context as sympathy or perhaps pity of God.

[01:13:07]>> Okay. uh Anelm Lombard and then St. Thomas. So nice.

[01:13:12]>> Um >> how do we attribute uh pity to God? Uh Thomas varies in his answer. He's got a large amount of diversity in his answer.

[01:13:24]Um but the fundamental kind of response that that controls everything is we don't say it according to an offect.

[01:13:32]That is to say, um, pity itself is a term that usually predicates some sort of effective quality.

[01:13:41]Passion is what we would call it today.

[01:13:44]Uh, but rather we say it according to an effect or a concrete divine work. So what grounds an attribution of being pitious, being merciful or pity to God is fundamentally divine work. Rather than something in God, it's something among us. This even has to do with the issue of intrinsic denomination which I was mentioning earlier. And then uh you can kind of go from there. We do analogy proportionality involving works and so on and so forth. And then the the magic question because later toists say we can call God pitiful and that is a proper formal proposition whereas for St. Thomas it is only metaphorical. So how does that change happen? And even that neoscalastic move I mentioned is being deployed. Uh when you look at the conceptual content of a passion definition of a passion, yes we always remove the genus from God. But when we start to analyze the specific differences of individual passions, some of those passions even according to their specific difference, a passion like anger uh involves imperfection in some way and therefore cannot fall in God. So we never say anger of God no matter how much you purify the predicate content. We never say anything except metaphorically or through analogy proportionality for St. Thomas and also for well for anyone who's a good theologian unless you're lactantius but we can rescue you too anyway. But when we get to miserordia, well later toists uh hold that you can place the specific difference which is tied up with unique object of this passion uh into God and therefore yield a proper formal proposition. Uh that actually becomes the common position in neoscolasticism.

[01:15:32]uh also among reformed orthodox uh it is the common position across the board in the early modern period whereas uh in scholasticism and among the fathers it's only metaphorical so tracking that that change particularly in terms of the corpus of St. Thomas and how that later position may or may not have foundation or be virtually contained in Tom and Thomas's achievement even at all in enabling intrinsic denomination of God which is quite the achievement uh that he he he's able to to manage anyway. So yeah that's uh some of the dissertation.

[01:16:07]>> Sounds great. Thanks Ryan. Okay well uh that's it then. I hope everybody enjoyed hope everyone has a blessed evening and God bless you all.