My interpretation of the First Cause argument for the Existence of God attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas and the essence of which perhaps goes back to Aristotle, appears in my mind to be valid provided that we assume that every phenomenon has an explanation (whether known or unknownst to us) and that each effect must have some preceding cause. It is argued, of course, that this chain can not regress backwards infinitely far---therefore, there must be a *First Cause* (or *Prime Mover*), which is God. Can someone either explain or refer me to a source that explains in simple, crystal clear terms, why infinite regress is so *obviously* impossible?

I know the story that they lacked our current biological knowledge. I know the story that they still considered abortion to be a grave evil. These two excuses seem inadequate to me. Regardless, they are still quoted to this very day by pro-abortion apologists. Aquinas was even quoted by name in *Roe vs. Wade* in support of historical theological confusion about abortion.*
*cf. *The Fake and Deceptive Science Behind Roe v. Wade: Settled Law v. Settled Science* by Thomas Hilgers, W., MD . Since they were so brilliant all they had to do was look at Psalm 51:5 “in sin did my mother conceive me” which clearly proves original sin is present at conception which necessitates a spiritual soul. The answer escapes me and causes me to question if they were they really so brilliant. If they were brilliant, then why the primitive thinking on ensoulment?

St. Thomas Aquinas presents a good logical proof on how a being called god exists: He is what I assumed he said [this is in my own words]: > Everything in the universe has a cause, without a cause nothing will take place [like Newton's first law]. If we try to question the existence of anything present on the earth, the causes of the causes will lead us to the very creation of earth. Reasoning more, will lead to the formation of the universe. Now the universe, needs a cause for its production. Since everything in this universe is finite, so there must also be a finite number of causes, in this universe, and so there must be a starter cause after which every other causes develops.. that "Starter Cause" is God. Now how do I prove that God is good, or God "is active," or "interferes in human activity"? With this I mean that God [son of God, who is in fact God but a different manifestation] comes onto earth, does miracles, and punishes and blesses, and tells everybody that they are subject to a future judgement. How do I prove that God is not a Deist God, which means that God is merely transcendent in relation to the universe, who doesn't interfere in its working? Some people may reason that since God is the creator, he has a fundamental power to morph things in the universe, but some may ask why. In my atheist friend's language—"Why does god check on the actions of people? why doesn't he chill?" This is all part of some kind of thought experiment to prove logically that God is as He is portrayed in the Bible. Since St. Thomas Aquinas started this "logical thinking" and was a Christian, I decided to ask it in the Christianity Stack Exchange. I myself am not a Christian, but I love studying Christianity and pondering over it.

If the hymn [*Panis angelicus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panis_angelicus) refer to the Eucharist (flesh of Christ, bread of life), why did St. Thomas Aquinas not say "Christ's bread" (*Panis Christi*, if that's the right Latin grammar) instead of "Angelic bread" (*Panis angelicus*)? Why switch the focus from Christ's body to Angels?

I'd like to read and understand Catholic theology, philosophy and Tradition as best as I can. I'm a biologist and not a philosopher/theologian -- and as such, I cannot (and thus far have not) dedicated massive amounts of time to reading/understanding *explicitly* the texts and concepts of specific philosophers/theologians in their entirety. I'm not opposed to reading the many influential authors, but given my lack of time to dedicate fully to this endeavor, I'd like to go about reading these authors in the most efficient way, if you will. My question then: **which major texts/authors should I prioritize reading (and in what order) to better grasp the current theology/philosophy of the Catholic faith?** My impression is, that I would benefit greatly reading the following (with supposed additions added in parentheses) in the presented order (first to last): (Plato) > Aristotle > Irenaeus > Augustine > Aquinas > Ratzinger Does this seem sensible? Are each of these authors necessary (as I suppose) to truly understand the other? Or can I read Aquinas or Ratzinger (for example) and get a good enough grasp of prior thought/philosophers? Are there other authors that are hugely important that I skipped (e.g., Descartes?)? Is there a textbook perhaps that anyone can recommend that introduces me to a sensible and necessary reading list or conceptual walkthrough? (I guess I'm ultimately looking for an "official" list (perhaps from a well-respected textbook, theologian, or the Church itself) vs anecdotal commentary. )

I'm struggling with this question for a while: It seems like dogs do know what dogs are. Is it possible for a dog to only recognize individuals and not grasp the universal concept of dog? I thought this ability to recognize universals was the ability that God gave to Adam (to name things) and thus that separated him from the animals. How did the Christian scholastic theologians (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) separate the animal and spiritual capacities of human beings?

There is a meme circulating where the statement > He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust. is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas treats of anger in *Summa Theologiæ* II-II q. 158 , but the quote does not seem to appear there. **Is the quote in the meme attributable to Thomas Aquinas, or not?**

According Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., *The Trinity and God the Creator* , ch. 2, q. 28 "The Divine Relations", § "Philosophical Notes on the Idea of Relation and Its Division", p. 111: >Real relations are divided into transcendental and predicamental. A transcendental relation is the order included in the essence of a thing as, for example, the soul’s transcendental order to the body, that of matter to form, essence to being, accident to the subject, science to its object, etc. All these things have these relations by their very essence, and the transcendental relation perdures even when the term disappears. With this said, are the personal relations in the Blessed Trinity transcendental relations as defined by Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.?

*Quodlibet* III, q. 12 a. 2 co. : >it must be said that every conscience, whether right or erroneous, whether in things evil in themselves or in things indifferent, is obligatory, such that he who acts against conscience sins. > >Latin :
Et ideo dicendum est quod omnis conscientia, sive recta, sive erronea, sive in per se malis, sive in indifferentibus, est obligatoria; ita quod qui contra conscientiam facit, peccat. > >Davies, O.P. & Nevitt transl. :
conscience is always binding, whether it is mistaken or not, and whether it is a question of things evil in themselves or morally neutral. Therefore, it is a sin to act against one’s conscience.

I've heard that there were two points of Catholic doctrine in Aquinas' Summa Theologica that were later successfully defended to the contrary. One, I think is the Immaculate Conception of Mary (although I don't know where that is in the Summa) and I'm not sure what the other one is. Excluding things that might not exactly measure up to modern science. What are the points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law?

This year (2024) we are right in the middle of 3 significant anniversaries related to St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Francis [launches three years of celebrations in his honor](https://www.ewtnvatican.com/articles/three-anniversaries-to-celebrate-thomas-aquinas-1258) : 700 years since canonization (July 18, 2023), 750 years since his death (March 7, 2024), and 800 years since his birth (2025). There are more than a dozen biographies written of St. Thomas Aquinas. **What is the latest scholarship on his birth date?** Most encyclopedias will only say ca. 1225 ([*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) and [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/)) , 1224/1225 ([*Britannica*](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Thomas-Aquinas)) . Here's what the [1912 *Catholic Encyclopedia* article](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm) says: > From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint's death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274. But the above quote must have been based on scholarship that may have been superseded. **I'm looking for 2-3 proposed dates and the reasoning behind each, citing late 20th century scholarship up to today.**

**Question:** What did St. Thomas Aquinas do for fun? We know that he was a brilliant mind who wrote many good works . However, even he himself says that games and having fun are good for one's soul (I am not sure these are exact words, but he said something in that style). There is this quote attributed to him > Now this relaxation of the mind from work consists on playful words or deeds. Therefore it becomes a wise and virtuous man to have recourse to such things at times. So, what was he doing to have fun, how did he play? If we do not have information, is there any educated guess? How did Dominicans, in general, have fun in those times?

What cannot licitly be bought and sold, according to Thomist Catholic moral theologians? (I know buying/selling relics is forbidden.)

St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica* II-II q. 78 a. 1 co., says that usury is to sell the use of a consumable good separately from the consumable good itself: >To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. In order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain **things the use of which consists in their consumption**: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury. > >On the other hand, there are **things the use of which does n̲o̲t̲ consist in their consumption**: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house. But that explanation makes no sense to me. Just because the use of wine consists in its destruction, I do not see how this implies that the sale of the use of wine also implies the sale of the property itself. I see no significant difference between using a house as a dwelling and using wine for drinking. If the sale of the use of the house can be separated from the sale of the property itself, then the sale of the use of the wine can also be separated from the sale of the property itself.

What did St. Thomas Aquinas (and/or perhaps, Augustine et al.) have to say regarding the worthy reception of Holy Communion and the forgiveness of venial sins?

St. Thomas Aquinas studied (and prayed) continually. It has been said that study became prayer for him. According to Catholicism, is study a form of prayer?

I have been studying the Trinity recently, and most of my studies have been from St. Thomas Aquinas, in his *Summa Theologiae*, and he would agree that the persons are the divine Essence. One thing that confuses me is that Aquinas says the divine relations are the divine essence in the sense that we can use the terms "person" and "essence" interchangeably. [*Summa Theologicae*, Q. 28](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm#article3) , but, if the relations (the subsistent persons) are the divine essence, how does one get out of the idea that the "essence of God is begotten" or "spirated"? Even though Aquinas rejected this view, that the essence of God can be begotten, it just seems a bit confusing to say "Jesus (as the divine relation 'filiation') is the divine essence of God, but at the same time, the essence of God isn't begotten?" this seems to be violating the classical laws of logic that x=x.

Thomists believe that there is no real distinction between perfections of God as God is pure act. My understanding is that they reject real distinctions between perfections because that leads to act and potency composition, but why would that be the case?

St. Thomas Aquinas is praised globally for his intellect, and such has gained him the merit of being a 'Doctor of the Church'. I am curious about several things though: 1. What are Aquinas's views on what is necessary for the attainment of salvation for the individual? 2. What are Aquinas's views on the nature of moral accountability for heretical opinion and action? 3. How do these views correspond to his view on heretics who are like-minded and like-spirited to the Church in more central matters, such as belief in the Trinity and the upholding of the Sacrament of Baptism? Modern heretics nowadays akin to this category would include the Roman Catholic Church's separated brethren, being Protestants and even more so Orthodox Christians. If Aquinas is silent about this matter, what would be the logical deduction one could make about his views regarding the salvation for baptized heretics who accept the Trinity taking into account his views on the two previous topics? *Note that I am not using the word 'heretic' here in a malicious way but rather in the way that is most useful given the context. The Roman Catholic Church, along with Aquinas, considers those outside of her to be 'heretics', and that is the intended meaning here. This language was used in order to better qualify the views of he who this question is about, being Thomas Aquinas.

According Paul Wadell's book *The Primacy of Love: An Introduction to the Ethics of Thomas Aquinas*, Aquinas defends that Charity is the mother of all virtues, and also how they can be perfected into 'gifts' of the Holy Spirit. It is exactly this part of how charity perfects them into gifts that I do not understand. It says that charity, when faced with its human limit, with its limit as a virtue, it is transformed by God into the Spirit, taking the virtue to its plenitude. How does this transformation happen? Or is it a mystery?