Pints With Aquinas - Why Does God Love Mary So Much? + Q&A w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Episode Date: September 17, 2021

Fr. Pine is back with another Q&A, this week focusing on the surprisingly deep question: "Why does God love Mary so much?"

Hello, and welcome to Pines with Aquinas. I am Fr. Gregory of Pine, coming at you here live. And in this here weekly installment of Question and Answers, well, live stream with Question and Answers, I thought that for a topic or for a theme, we could talk about the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why? Well, two weeks ago we talked a little bit about the Rosary, but the focus there was more on the kind of practicals of what are the mysteries that the rosary presents and how do we access those mysteries or how do we cultivate a kind of living contact with the mysteries that the rosary proposes. And so, you know, that was kind of more geared towards the life of prayer. And here, you know, while this theme certainly has application when it comes to your prayer life, we're thinking about it a little bit more speculatively. So, kind of musing or pondering what are the kind of core realities of our faith and then how those core realities impinge upon us.

So, you know, whenever you talk about why God loves anything, you're talking about deep, deep mysteries. And as a result of which, we do so with a kind of fear and trembling. Not that we can't trust God with his love or with the objects of his love, but in the sense that as you get closer and closer to the divine nature, we come to the recognition that it's a consuming fire, which purifies our minds and our hearts of any imperfection, which would keep us from appreciating the realities themselves, but also receiving or appropriating those realities in our lives. So, to dive right in then to the subject matter at hand, why is it that God loves Mary, or

what is it about Mary that God loves, or why does God love Mary so much? You can approach it from a variety of angles. So, I thought that maybe a good way to set up the problem or a good way to approach the problem is just to think about the mysteries of God as being kind of in an order or as being articulated. So, when St. Thomas Aquinas approaches the mysteries of the faith in the Summa, he does so in orderly fashion. And he explains in the prologue to the Summa Theologiae that he does so deliberately, because when he looked around at the time of his writing, which is like, you know, like 1265 to 1273, he saw that there were a lot of theology textbooks available.

There's one big one that a lot of people used called the Sentences of Peter Lombard, but he found that those texts weren't arranged in the most approachable way. They tend to multiply questions, they tend to put the different mysteries of the faith in a kind of haphazard order, and as a result of which, they don't really conduce to learning in the best way, or they don't really conduce to conformity in the best way. So, he said about it in such a way as to propose those mysteries of the faith in the way that he thought was best suited to the reality itself and best suited to our approaching them. And when he does so, he arranges them in questions, and in those questions are articles, and so it's common to talk about arguments as articulated, or even joints as

articulated, because we see how one thing hinges upon another, how each aspect of a mystery unfolds to our comprehension in orderly fashion because the mystery itself has which stands up under scrutiny, which can sustain our mind's inquiry in a way that is, you know, like thick and metaphysically dense, because the mystery itself is inexhaustible. The mystery itself is super intelligible. And so, at the heart of it, we find there to be something that's wise, something that's reasonable, something that's, yeah, something that's very good indeed. So, you'll hear different voices in the tradition speak about the analogy of faith, and it's used as a way of describing how certain aspects of the faith have a kind of primary place in our contemplation, because they have a kind of primary place either in God or in God's interaction with creation. So, the two most important Christian

doctrines are the Trinity, which is to say the Godhead. So St. Thomas treats the Trinity in the first like 42-ish questions of the Summa Theologia after having dedicated a question to methodology, and then the Incarnation. So St. Thomas proceeds through a variety of consideration and then ends with this consideration of Christ who is both the image of God and the exemplar of our conformity or of our assimilation to the Godhead. And then he does the work of relating all of the aspects of the faith to those principal doctrines. And so, there is an order to the way in which reality is and unfolds, and then there is an order as a result to our approach if we are to learn it well, if we are to be conformed to it well. I think a helpful image

for illuminating this concept is to think about there being a kind of river of revelation that courses from the very heart of God. And in that river, there are certain aspects or certain realities which are upstream and certain realities which are downstream. That's, you know, kind of like relative to other things. There's not like precise locations of upstream and downstream. It's just to say that, you know, the Trinity, the triune God is upstream of all other Christian mysteries, because all other Christian mysteries, by comparison to the triune God, are contingent. They could have been otherwise, or they could not have been. Whereas, you know, like the incarnation is downstream of the incarnate, excuse me, is downstream of the triune God. And so, I think that

when talking about the mystery of the most blessed Virgin Mary and of the love which our Lord kind of bestows upon her in such marvelous fashion. We can approach it from, you know, kind of coming upstream and then coming downstream. So we can approach it from below and then we can approach it from above. So I thought that we could approach it first from below because that's closer to our experience. Those are meditations which we may have happened upon previously. They're meditations which kind of make more sense to us at face value. And then we can try, and kind of like a little final piece, to approach it from upstream,

which is to say, in the first segment, we'll approach it with an attempt to understand how this kind of helps us who are, you know, sons and daughters of Eve and who are saved by Christ Jesus and in a certain sense, you know, by the co-redemptive acts of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And then in the second piece, we can kind of see how this issues from God's nature and how it issues from God's choice. So downstream, here we're saying like, why is it that God loves Mary? And we're going to answer in terms of like final causality. He loves her on account of the fact that dot, dot, dot, or we can appreciate that he loves her so much because we receive it in just this way. So one way in which we see this is that his love for the Blessed Virgin Mary is a kind of

monstrance of his love more broadly. So we see in the Blessed Virgin Mary is a kind of monstrance of his love more broadly. So, we see in the Blessed Virgin Mary how very excellent, how excelling, how sublime is the love of God because it's concentrated in her. And from that, we derive the knowledge or we derive in faith the kind of certainty that the Lord has seen fit to bless, to bestow manifest graces on the created order. So, the Blessed Virgin Mary receives graces which surpass those of all other creatures, save only our Lord Jesus Christ incarnate in human flesh. So, obviously, if you think about it just kind of in terms of time, she's blessed with the Immaculate Conception.

She is blessed with the Divine Maternity, she is blessed with fullness of grace, she is blessed with the Assumption at the end of her days. And then we can think about other mysteries which get at her role in the work of salvation and the work of redemption. So she's sometimes hailed under the title of Advocate, or Mediatrix of Grace, or Co-Redemptrix. So the Blessed Virgin Mary shows how very dignified can the created order be if it is open to or receptive of the grace which God bestows. And as a result, it gives us access to those graces in a kind of way. So, while we ourselves can't hope to be graced in the

way that the Blessed Virgin Mary was graced, it's not so much a difference of kind as it is a difference of degree. And so it places us on a kind of spectrum, or it places us on a kind of continuum, whereby we can look to her as our advocate and guide, and we can derive from her a kind of certainty or a kind of knowledge, a kind of faith, as to what the grace of God might look like in our own life, not just, you know, at a kind of distance or in an abstract way, but in the very process whereby she, you know, is active, is operative in bringing those graces about in our life. So, as she was the mother of God in the incarnate order, so too she is the mother of all believers by a kind of extension. Because just as God chose for the incarnation to take place in her womb, so he chooses that

the redemption unfold by her mediation in our lives too. So we see how God blesses the created order and he makes it such that that blessing redounds not only to her glory and to the glory of her son, but also to our glory indeed. So we are able to partake of the, you know, like the graces accorded to Christ, the graces accorded to the Blessed Virgin Mary by kind of logic of extension. And as a result of which, it gives us hope, right? extension. And as a result of which, it gives us hope, right? So, it shouldn't be a matter of despair in as much as we like look to the Blessed Virgin Mary and think, oh man, I could never attain to such exalted heights as a result of which I shouldn't even try and I should just like recline on my bark lounger and then just like take it easy for the rest of my live long day. No, we see in her what is possible in human nature. And while we may not attain to the same heights, we can

kind of endeavor the same pilgrimage, or we can endeavor the same intimacy which she enjoyed with our Lord Jesus Christ, because God has vouchsafed it to us in her. So, by approaching this mystery from downstream, we see how what the Lord has done in the Blessed Virgin Mary, what the love that he bestows upon her is good for us, it's revelatory for us, it's ennobling for us, it's hope-inducing for us. So, all of these reasons seem to give a kind of sense of the intelligibility of the mystery. So, those would be the types of reasons that are most concrete, probably most practical and appealing to us in a kind of immediate way or visceral way even. But then we can approach the mystery from upstream. And we have to concede the fact that God doesn't need

the Blessed Virgin Mary. In fact, God doesn't need creation in any way, shape, or form. in any way, shape, or form. So, there must be something more kind of elemental or more basic, more principled in the reason for which he loves the Blessed Virgin Mary as he does. And in all of God's interaction with creation, God doesn't will things separate from himself as if, you know, he were choosing them and like going out towards them in love and desire and the way that we go out in love and desire towards, you know, like food or drink or sexual intercourse or human communion or the worship of God as something befitting our nature and building us up in our nature, which is lacking until such time as we gain access to these goods. Rather, God in choosing anything is effectively affirming himself, is choosing himself, because

God is the end of all of his activity. God is the end of all of his knowing and loving. So when God chooses to love the Virgin Mary as he does, it's a way by which of him choosing to know and to love himself. And that's not egotistical or solipsistic. That's not locked in or otherwise foreign to a genuinely, you know, kind of like compassionate or engaged experience of reality. Rather, it's just simply to say that in the work of creation, God is doing something for his glory. And if it entails our salvation,

it's ultimately to that end, for his glory. You're like, all right, Father Greg, that's a little gobbledygookie. Speak to me concretely of what exactly you mean. So, in creation, God is not about a work of filling up something that is lacking or needy in himself. Rather, he's making himself manifest so that we can share in, so that we can partake in the glory of God, which is and was and ever shall be. So, the reason for which God loves the Blessed Virgin Mary as he does is simply because God loves the Virgin Mary as he does. So, that's kind of, I don't know, a little bit of a difficult response, or it's a little bit of, it sounds like I'm being, I don't know, difficult in my answering of the question. But it all goes to say simply that God loves Mary because he loves Mary, because he's chosen to love Mary. So there's nothing about her, you know, antecedent to his choice, which makes him to love her as he does.

His love of her is a supreme gift or bestowal of generosity. or bestowal of generosity. And he does, you know, like, he expresses his love in this peculiar way because to him, it is wise and it is good. And that's not like relativistic or, you know, kind of like trivializing. That's simply to say that God sees in that something that is for his glory, which fits in the context of his providence, which fits in the context of his governance, which ultimately redounds to our salvation, to his manifestation, and to the drawing all things unto the communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So, when God goes about this work of creation, he doesn't do it so as to affirm each of us in a way that is identical to the way in which he affirmed the last or the next.

He affirms each of us in a way that is peculiar so that we can each say something uniquely glorious, uniquely excellent about the Godhead. And in his bestowing of grace upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, he does something in her which is unparalleled. He does something in her which is unique. He does something in her which is especially glorious. And the reason for which is because in his wisdom, God saw fit to do just that. Because God thought that she might like it. And to him, it was pleasing. Now again, we can approach it from kind of downstream and say like, oh, there are all these reasons for which it was pleasing. Now again, we can approach it from, you know, kind of downstream

and say like, oh, there are all these reasons for which it makes sense, but ultimately we have to repose on the unsearchable wisdom of God. For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor, who has instructed him in anything, asks St. Paul at the end of Romans 11. So, we have to kind of come up or kind of confront here the mystery of predilection that God loves in differentiated fashion. So, God loves all equally by the self-same act of love, and all of us are equally an expression of that love, but to different persons he bestows different gifts. And the reason isn't because, you know, he's, I don't know, like kind of getting miserly with his gifts in certain cases and then being profligate with his gifts or prodigal with his gifts in other cases. It's that

God has intended, right, from the outset to do just this differentiated thing, to bestow gifts in this way and in that way so as to, you know, manifest his glory and to save our souls. So, when you get right down to it, the reason that God loves Mary so much or the reason that God loves Mary as he does is because he does. It's just because he does in his unsearchable and infinite wisdom, which is not to say unintelligible wisdom, which is to say his super intelligible wisdom, God has seen it as good and inclined towards it as good, not needing or not lacking, but ultimately in affirming as an overabundant, as a kind of replete expression of his glory, as a way by which of, you know, like filling up what is lacking, but truth be told, there is nothing lacking, to his glory. So, the Blessed Virgin

Mary is just an excellent manifestation of the divine glory, an excellent manifestation of the divine wisdom, an excellent manifestation of the divine love, and that in itself is sufficient. That in itself is enough because God is free to do just that. And while we are consoled, comforted, encouraged, enlightened, illumined by kind of garnering these different reasons from the approach from downstream to upstream, ultimately we need to like kind of gaze into the deep, dark mysteries of God as we come to the appreciation of God's love for Mary from upstream. So, it's simply to say that God will do what he wills for, you know, it is to him that belongs by rights this, you know, unique capacity to manifest his glory.

Yeah, so those are some simple reasons or or some maybe more than simple reasons, as to why God loves Mary as he does. And with that in the background, we can turn now to some questions. Here we go. Let's get ourselves all pumped up. Let's find the mineral of the frame. Let's straighten our capooses. I think I'm the only one here wearing a capoose, so maybe I shouldn't use R. Maybe that pertains to me and the mouse in my pocket. All right, here we go. First question. John Bevilacqua says, Father Pine, please pray for my brother's father-in-law as he was diagnosed with brain cancer yesterday. Do you guys have to bless yourself before you pray? Does it not count if you don't? So as to the first, with pleasure, I will pray for your brother's

father-in-law. And then as to, do you always have to bless yourself to pray? You do not. Prayer is just the raising of one's mind and heart to God. And there is no formula which opens the box and shuts the box. The box is always open insofar as God is always present to you. It's just a matter of kind of growing in one's awareness or cognizance of how you may be present to him, and that's what prayer does. So it counts. Oh, I forgot to put that one on the screen. There we go. Put it on the screen to show that I still remember how to work this program, even if only barely. All right, next question. D. Wong says, Father Pine, Aquinas de Ratione Bus Fidei makes it easy to see the real distinction of the persons and identity of the essence.

But how do you conceptualize the relations as identical to the essence? That is a huge question and a difficult question. And I would refer you to a book by Father Gilles Emery called The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Especially, he's got three chapters on processions, relations, and persons, which are super helpful for kind of bringing together these concepts and illuminating them. The simple thing is to say that it's, I don't know, I mean, this is a deep, deep mystery, and as a result of which, I don't know that I can evince an argument which will be knock down, drag out, or utterly convincing or overwhelming, but I can say that, you know, St. Thomas talks about it in terms of subsistence.

So, he says that the kind of core reality of a relation is ad esse, being towards. And so far as relation is an accident, as we experience it in the created world, the thing which confronts us first, the aspect of relation that confronts us first, is in-esse, which is to say being in, or kind of adhering in, which is true of all accidents. But he says the kind of particular note or the distinguishing note of relation is ad-esse. And as relation pertains to the Trinity, he says it's ad esse, purified, of any of the limitations of in esse. So it just denotes a being towards. And when it comes to the persons of the Most Blessed Trinity, he describes how processions give rise to relations, not temporally, but kind of this is how we conceptualize it. So that the Father begets the son, and the son is

Godhead from the father, and that begets, as it were, that gives rise to relations, namely of paternity and filiation. And the very identity of the son, insofar as the son is Godhead from the father, is a kind of being towards or being from the father, and that the son subsists in the Godhead after the manner of that relation. So that's a kind of thumbnail sketch, but I would refer you to Father Gilles Emery's book for, yeah, kind of deeper insights into that reality. And he follows up with, also, do you ever plan on making a video with Father Emery, specifically on the Trinity? I heard in another video you said you were studying under him. He's the greatest living Trinitarian

theologian, in my opinion. Do I plan on making a video with him? Not in the short term, but maybe. I don't know. I feel like he might have to suggest the option to me rather than me to him. All right, next question. Nick B. Rock says, Father Pine, I engage with the oneness Pentecostal who said Thomas is incoherent. If, he says, each relation is identical to the divine essence, then the Father is the Son and vice versa. Also, a relation entails a relatum. This would cause some sort of change in the essence. What are your thoughts? Yeah, so I don't know that I have too terribly much to add in addition to the last question, but St. Thomas addresses this at length in Prima Pars Question 28, so that is like the key text on relation. But then the

subsequent kind of subtretis, Questions 30 through 42, go through kind of distinguishing marks of the persons, and after talking about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under their, you know, kind of particular distinguishing names of Father, Son, image, word, love, gift, etc., then St. Thomas will go on to describe kind of distinguishing notes of intra-Trinitarian relations, and I think there you'll find some helpful distinctions. Again, Father Gilles Emery's book, The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, is great, but I think that that key distinction between in-essay and odd-essay is helpful to keep in mind. Yeah, so I hope that's helpful. Anthony P. Clausen says, part one, if God is just, why does he make imperfect humans who make so many terrible judgments to have to sort out so many religions in order to find the one true religion. Okay, so in answer to part one, God does not owe us anything,

and that's a kind of stark claim. I've heard that claim defended in pretty excellent fashion, or I've seen that claim defended in pretty excellent fashion by Herbert McCabe in his book God and Evil in the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, which was his STL thesis, which was published posthumously by his literary executor, Father Brian Davis. So that would be a good introduction to this claim that God does not owe relation. The reason for which is that in order to ground a relationship of justice, there needs to be some modicum of equality. So justice has three notes of equality, precision, and equity, or the kind of establishing of some mean with respect to the thing. And those elements aren't present with respect to God's relation vis-a-vis

creation, insofar as everything that is, is by virtue of the divine gift of being. So, we can't say that God owes us. It's only appropriate or proper to say that God owes himself. And then we can kind of extend the logic of justice only by a kind of analogy or only by a kind of metaphor, if we're speaking most properly. So when it comes to making imperfect humans, I think it should be said at the outset that God makes us perfectly at the outset. It should be said at the outset that God makes us perfectly at the dawn of creation. So when he makes our original parents, right, he makes them in a state of rectitude or original justice, and they are outfitted with every good and perfect gift. So the gift of grace, the gift of integral nature, the gift of these associated privileges of immortality and impassibility. And so God is

not deficient in any way, shape, or form vis-a-vis his creation insofar as he has kitted us out beyond compare. We chose against that. And as a result of which, if we're talking in terms of justice, then we justly merit the punishment of damnation. And St. Thomas says just that in one of his replies to an objection when he's asking how God could command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He says just on its most stark of terms, right, God could command such a thing because it's not murder insofar as he could be kind of sub-delegating Abraham to exact the punishment which is due in justice to a creature which has sinned against the Most High God. Now, the logic of how sin applies in the case of original sin is a little harder to account for in terms of like fault or culpa and punishment or pena, but those are just kind of the most basic details there. And so then when it comes to sorting out among different religions, I think

what we're dealing with is a question of, you know, like the kind of historical dispensation of the progress of salvation history. And there are times when it's easier and times when it's more difficult to come to the knowledge of God, but I don't really think that there are any like golden ages or whatever the opposite of golden age is, you know, good times and bad times. Michel Foucault says there are just dangerous times. And I think that it's always, we're always in danger, as it were, of falling away from God, but we kind of proceed with the confidence that God gives us grace sufficient to flourish, and that if one goes to hell, it is by his own free choice, and if one goes to heaven,

it is by God's predestinating grace. And that is a mystery, right? A deep, dark, kind of terrible mystery, but it does not impugn the divine innocence. So, those are some initial thoughts. I'm going to bump up my chair so that way my head is closer to the top of the frame. Part two, why does he leave us, his imperfect creation, to make such an important decision judgment that has eternal consequences? Because that's our nature, right? So he makes different things in creation which have the capacity to affirm him, right? To kind of choose for his glory, choose for his glory in different ways. So in the case of angels,

they proceed to their end by one choice. In the case of us, we proceed to our end by many choices. And yeah, this is just like part of the drama of human existence is that while ultimate tragedy remains a possibility insofar as one may go to hell, that God is always kind of inducing, one may go to hell, that God is always kind of inducing, invoking, inviting, you know, prodding, such that we accept the offer of divine grace and turn to him and so be converted. So God gives us the whole of a life, whether that life is long or short, is subject to his divine providence, but gives us the whole of a life so that we might accede to that offer of grace subject to his divine providence, but gives us the whole of a life so that we might exceed to that offer of grace and to ultimately, you know, know and love him. And, you know, like I just mentioned angels and men, but you can also think in terms of like animals and plants and rocks, they also quote unquote choose the glory of God, but subject to their own limitations,

which is to say they're not free. And as a result of which their affirmation is automatic or instinctual or just a mere matter of course. So we're situated in between those who choose freely by one action and those who do not choose freely. Could God have made it otherwise? Yes, but he made it this way. And that's subject to the divine power to choose as he chooses to create in his divine wisdom. And there you might check out Prima Pars Question 25, Article 6 on whether this is the best possible universe, to which St. Thomas responds, no. Hallelujah says, it is later this week. Oops, it is indeed. I'm in the United States briefly, so I had to bump it back for another thing. So thanks for hanging with. Cheers to you.

Angela J. says, hi, Father. What might be some indications in lay, married, mother of many kids' lives of calling to third order vocation? Is it similar to discernment of primary vocation? Is desire enough? Thanks. Prayers for you. Yeah, I would say desire and then ability. So it's not the same as your primary vocation. And if it ever becomes an obstacle to your primary vocation, then it shouldn't be pursued. So it should always facilitate your primary vocation. I once had a conversation with a woman who is married to a permanent deacon. And the way that she expressed it to me was like, you know, now he's like really come into his vocation.

And I had a kind of strong instinctual response to that where I said, no, no, his vocation is to love you, right? As St. Paul expresses in Ephesians 5, to be subordinate to each other out of love for Christ. You know, wives, be subordinate to your husbands as the church is to Christ, and husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church. And I think that that is the principal means, the sacramental means whereby God is sanctifying this husband and this wife, irrespective of whether or not they have children. And if they have children, then obviously their married love and the sacramental grace, which is mediated through that married love, is meant to spill

over into the lives of their children and to encourage in them the life of grace. But his married vocation is already sanctifying and enough, more than sufficient. And so, while it may be good for him to be a permanent deacon, it's in no wise, you know, like it should in no wise impugn the dignity of his married bond. And I don't think that, you know, either of those parties think that, but I just want to bring that into focus. So, as concerns the third order, it should encourage you to be a good wife, mother of many, layperson, and it shouldn't detract from your consent to and cooperation with the grace given in the context of that life. So I think you're looking for something that facilitates your life of prayer, contemplation, sacraments, study, kind of like Christian friendship, fellowship, and things like that, but in such a way that it also brings you more kind of like urgently and

desirously into your primary vocation. And then when it comes to sorting out among which different place that you could land, yeah, then I think that affinity is a good indicator and something that you think will, on the one hand, correspond to your temperament and vocation, but also challenge you to grow more deeply. Okay. Angela J. adds, also does the obedience of a wife to her husband equate to the obedience required of religious superiors? Nope. Do indications of prudence, marital discrepancies, improved need for communication factor in? Yes. I think there, I recorded a video maybe like three weeks ago called headship

of Christ, headship of Adam. And that would be my longer response to your question, which is a good question. Um, all right, here we go. Next question. Hey, Father Pine, have you always been a scholar? Is that something you developed? If one is not intellectually gifted, is there a point in him reading and studying? So I've not always been a scholar. Yeah, there were certain times in my life where I thought that scholarship was overblown and silly and I wanted to avoid it. I didn't like read much at all until I was like 19, except those things that I was assigned and not always those things well. But I think that what is important is not that one is smart or naturally gifted. I think what is important that one applies himself to the study of God and all things in light of God.

And I think that what you study, right, will be a matter of what you're kind of committed to by virtue of your state in life. But also, I think it's good to study the faith regardless of, you know, like what job or what, you know, kind of like secondary vocation you find yourself committed to. So, I think that studying the faith and challenging yourself in your study of the faith is an important aspect of Christian conversion because as we grow in our capacity to know God, so we grow in our capacity to love God, because what is loved must first be known, and the mysteries of the faith admit of intellectual and volitional kind of access

or penetration. And so, even if we fail at study, I think it still pays to fail at studying, provided that we fail in ways that are constant, devout, persevering, committed, and open to the prospect of ongoing and deeper conversion. And he adds, what's the best way to read a book so that we remember the important things later? I've actually, this question's come up a lot in live streams. I'm happy to answer it again, of course, but a simple thing I would say is read Mortimer Adler's book, How to Read a Book. I think that's a good guide. And then Dorothy Sayre's essay, The Lost Tools of Learning, which is not directly pertinent to your question, but I think draws out some good principles for the intellectual life. And then the last thing is The Intellectual

Life is the name of a book by A.G. Sertiange, who's a Dominican. And that's actually one of the books that made me want to become a Dominican. So I'd recommend that heartily. Boom. Next question. Victory in the Circuses. I know you're a Cormac McCarthy fan. I've heard his works being described as Gnostic in nature. Do you agree? Is Gnosticism making a comeback in the current age? So good question. I recorded a podcast on Cormac McCarthy that you can find on Godsplaining. I think it's called like McCarthy in literature. So just look like Godsplaining, Pine, McCarthy, yeah, et cetera. And you'll find that. Those are most of my thoughts on, many of my thoughts on Cormac McCarthy.

But yes, he has a kind of late Gnosticism, which you see cropping up, especially in the Border Trilogy. So, All the Pretty Horses, The Crossing, and Cities of the Plain. And I think that the Gnosticism that he introduces into those texts is a kind of way of searching the human condition. And I don't, you know, he's not a believer, but I think he's open to the prospect of some kind of transcendence in the life of human beings in the way that other kind of secular humanist authors are not as open, which I think is one of the aspects of his literary style or his literary genius, which recommends him. But I think that he's looking for kind of common features of the human experience, which tap into that desire for transcendence and maybe even break it open. And so he uses nihilism as a way by which to kind of show the hollowness of many of man's commitments. And I think he uses Gnosticism to show that, yeah, maybe some of those

longings or desires are not unfounded or they have a kind of complement in the human experience. And so often, you know, it's in this situation where, you know, like the protagonist is wandering through Mexico or southern Texas and has fallen on hard times, to say the least, or to speak euphemistically, and then needs some kind of act of hospitality whereby to make it out of a really, really tough situation. And that is extended. And then you have this Mexican peasant describing, you know, kind of mystical realities and very arcane terminology. And I think that what he's giving expression to

there is the, the inscrutability of the human experience is commonly shared, but as like co suffered. Um, so these people often sacrifice much in order to extend hospitality to the protagonist and sometimes they suffer for it. Uh, But there's a sense in which it's like, it's necessary or a sense in which, yeah, like if they weren't to do so, the world would prove itself void of meaning. It's like a kind of access point to the meaningfulness of reality. So is Gnosticism making a comeback in the current age? I don't know. You know, I don't know that I can assess that too terribly well. I think the people want to be, I don't know, I think that they want to be knowledgeable in a certain sense, but I think they're completely content to be ignorant if it's convenient or if it proves more advantageous in a certain circumstance. So I'll think about that more and maybe we can come back to it later. All right. Silkeana Nothing says, I don't know what that refers to. High Father Pine, do married Protestant converts have to be remarried in the church for their marriage to be sacramental? Or does this happen once the couple is fully initiated into the church? Thanks.

If both persons are baptized and if you observe the prescribed form of your ecclesial communion, then you are already enjoying the effects of a sacramental marriage. Yeah. And if you consent to a bond, basically, that's faithful and fruitful and permanent, then that's marriage, right? If there's a serious obstacle to one of those things, and it may be necessary to have your marriage convalidated or radically sanated, And you can talk to your kind of like local priest about that. But in general, a marriage between two baptized persons, which observes the right of the ecclesial communion

to which they pertain at the time, is already a valid sacramental marriage. Boom. Great question. Here we go. Jonathan says, what was the understanding of scripture prior to the development of the New Testament canon? Was it understood to be inspired? If so, how was this determined without a magisterium? Moving on. Protestants often use this to defend sola scriptura and not needing a pope magisterium. So the things that I know about this theme I learned from Brent Petrie and his course,

Introduction to Scripture, which I found on Catholic courses at the time. It was for sale in audio version, and the parish for which I was working at the time bought it, and I presented it to the faithful as a course. But this idea of canon, right, is something that kind of gradually coalesces in the Catholic tradition. Some of the first pronouncements on the scriptural canon as we have received it, like the Catholic books as we have them now, kind of crops up in the fourth century. So there is mention of it in St. Athanasius in a kind of pastoral letter that he circulated at Easter, in St. Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana, letter that he circulated at Easter in St. Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana, and then in a local council of Rome, I think presided over by Pope Damasus I. So, you know, like the conversation as to what's in and what's out is somewhat fluid up until the end of the fourth century, and then it starts kind of concretizing at that point. It's not formally defined in an

ecumenical council until the 16th century at Trent, right? Protestants will sometimes appeal back to the Muratorian canon, and that will form in part the reason for the exclusion of the so-called apocryphal books or deuterocanonical books. And that, Brant Petrie will argue, is based off a kind of fable about the Council of, gosh, Jamnia, if I'm getting this right. I might be muddling some of the details here. But the point that he makes is that even in the Hebrew tradition, the Old Testament canon, you know, so the 46 books of the Old Testament Bible. So all told in the Catholic Bible, there's 73 books, 46 Old Testament, 27 New Testament. Protestants agree on the 27 New Testament, but they exclude seven Old Testament books, so limiting in the Old Testament canon to 39. Sometimes an argument given for that is that it's the 39 books present in the

Muratorian canon, or it's because those books are the ones published in Hebrew or written in Hebrew, whereas the other seven which are excluded can only-unquote, be found in Greek texts. So Hebrew texts of those seven have been found. The Muratorian canon is just one of a variety of canons. It's not authoritative at the time of its publication, though it may portend to be. And so, like, the Jewish kind of canonical question is open until the 9th century, as Petrie explains it. So, yeah, his argument is that in the 9th century, as Petrie explains it. So yeah, his argument is that in the 16th century, Martin Luther wants to exclude certain texts on doctrinal grounds. So like 1 Maccabees, for instance, which speaks of, you know, prayer for those who die with these amulets around their neck with the idea that the prayers of those presently on earth can

somehow facilitate the purgation of sins of those who have died, right? Seems to suggest the existence of purgatory, which he would have been opposed to doctrinally. And so he uses the Muratorian canon as a way by which to exclude those texts, but it's kind of like a post hoc propter, you know, whatever. It's a kind of fallacious mode of argumentation, ex post facto, whatever, doesn't matter. And like so for instance martin luther wanted to exclude the letter of james because of its teaching on works and the place that works occupy in salvation or justification or sanctification more broadly um so i think that those are all good arguments to be mindful of or to rehearse and i would refer you to brandt

petrie's treatment of them in his introductory course on sacred scripture. So yeah, and then as to what the understanding of the scripture and the canon was, he also treats canon in the context of that same course. So you can find a larger or more adequate treatment of those themes in that text, and I hope you find it very fruitful. Grant Levesque asks, did Mary need to be baptized? That's a great question. So there are reasons to say yes, and there are reasons to say no. It's an open theological debate. So reasons to say yes are Christ was baptized, so in conformity to Christ,

she might have been baptized. Reasons to say no, I mean, she didn't suffer the effects of sin, and the cleansing of original sin and personal sin is one of the foremost effects of baptism. But it also gives other things like character, which is a kind of participation in the priesthood of Christ, a stable and indelible mark on the human soul, which, you know, would have been accorded to her even if it did not, you know, baptism did not play a role in cleansing from sin, which she had not incurred. And also, baptism brings about the influx of grace, virtues, gifts of the Holy Spirit, which Mary would have already had in spades from her conception. So yeah, you can see the reasons for which. But no, it's not kind of determined doctrinally in the church's tradition, but people argue on both sides, and you're free to continue arguing. And that argument is super helpful for illuminating some of these concepts

that are at stake. Nicholas Anthony says, Hi, Father Pine. Is there any way to prove that Jesus is in fact the word incarnate? It depends what you mean by prove. I mean, you can give arguments as to how Jesus is unique, how Jesus is, you know, who he says he is in a broad sense. And some of these are referred to as signs of credibility. So arguments from reason, which suggests that what we're dealing with here is peculiar, excellent, awesome indeed. So like the fact that all this Old Testament prophecy culminates in Christ in peculiar fashion, the fact that Jesus lives after the manner that

he does, that he raises himself or is risen from the dead, depending on how you describe it and which scriptural idiom or paradigm you appeal to. The fact of like the endurance of his teaching, how he compares to kind of like ancient Near Eastern, or not ancient Near Eastern, but contemporary Near Eastern, you know, like figures of a similar sort, like religious revolutionaries, like Bar Kokhba, for instance, who led a revolution maybe like 30 years later, and whose name is basically lost in the annals of history because he didn't rise from the dead and because he wasn't the incarnate son of God, and the way in which Christ's witness in life is appropriated in subsequent generations in the context of the church and the sacraments and how it produces

saints. So lots of arguments that you can marshal, but there's no indisputable proof. There's nothing that's going to convince all seven billion members of the presently living human community. But yeah, there are ways that you can get at it. All right, Joanna Guerra says, Hi, I'm pretty sure I'm called to religious life, still in high school, but I'm wondering, should I go to university before I try to enter a community? It seems somewhat pointless to me. Thanks. So whenever you enter religious life, you enter a community, right? So I think that it'd be good to start visiting communities.

And when you do, they'll give you indication as to what is required for entry. So some places will say, go for it. You know, you can enter at the age of 17 or you can enter sooner, but you can only really make vows at, I think the age of 18, you know, after having had a period of probation. So I don't think that most places would admit you before 17 or 18, but some places will encourage you to spend a little time in college for, you know, reasons of basic human maturation. And also just to kind of like troubleshoot problems, which may be more adequately addressed before religious life than in religious life. So I would say, yeah, here, there's a kind of, yeah, importance accorded to like living in the real

and kind of like living your concrete in particular and embodied human life and then seeing what comes about as a result. So, yeah, I would say start visiting communities and then talking with the vocation directors of those different communities. And just offhand, you know, if you're thinking active women's religious life, a great women's religious congregation in the United States is the Nashville Dominican Sisters, who are awesome. States is the Nashville Dominican Sisters, who are awesome. And then you have these different nuns monasteries if you're looking for contemplative religious life, and there are a variety of options there into which you can inquire. Those are just some thoughts offhand. Okay, let's go. Next question from Jason M. Hi, Father. Will we celebrate the Lord's Supper in heaven with Christ? He seems to suggest this when he says, we won't drink the cup again until he drinks it anew in his Father's kingdom. Yeah, so, I mean, heaven is described after the manner

of a kind of liturgy, so it won't take the same form that it assumes in our experience of it now. But yeah, what we're preparing for is the wedding banquet, the kind of feast of the Lamb, the wedding feast of the Lamb, as of the lamb, the wedding feast of the lamb as it's described in the book of Revelation. So yeah, maybe you just look to the book of Revelation, especially those last couple chapters, and they give some kind of mystical indication as to what we await. But a lot of the scriptural imagery assigned to the life of heaven is in terms of banquet and in terms of worship. So it seems to suggest that we will. Mike Rogan, God bless all from Evansville, Indiana. Let's go. I lived in Louisville, Kentucky for a while, so

I greet you in a kind of time warpy way from upriver. Upriver. I just said wyver. Oh my goshy. All right, here we go. Purple says, you should probably go to college before joining a community, but that's from a layman, probably not the person to tell you what to do. Hey, cheers, mate. Um, Taylor Wilderam says, this is awesome. Why should I become a Catholic? I think if you're asking the question, then you probably have, you know, some ideas as to reasons for which, um, as to whether I will wow you with one particular reason.

I don't know. Um, I don't know. I think that each of us is afforded a whole human life, you know, in many instances, a long human life, and the Lord gives us scope for our thinking and our choosing. And in the context of that earthly pilgrimage, He permits us and encourages us to experience things, not just so that you can have a wide variety of experiences, but that you can have a deep experience of reality. It's said of the Lord in John 2 that he knows what's in the heart of man, and insofar as we are to be conformed to Christ, so too we should know what is in the heart of man, so that we can sympathize with the human reality, that we can experience and live the human reality. And, you know, I've only ever experienced that

from a Catholic vantage. I was baptized as an infant. I was raised in the Catholic reality. And, you know, I've only ever experienced that from a Catholic vantage. I was baptized as an infant. I was raised in the Catholic faith. I have never doubted the faith in any significant or substantial way, nor have I been tempted to, you know, seek other options. But my experience of the Catholic faith is that it has given me, like, real living access to God and the things of God. And as a result of which it has, you know, like revealed me to myself, it has given me a deep appreciation for the human condition and for the human reality. And in that sense, it's given me a kind of sense of fit. It's given me the experience that this is precisely where I am meant to be, that real life is here and not

elsewhere. And that I will not proceed by evading or avoiding what lies before me, but precisely by living it, right? By passing through it, by enduring it, by suffering it at times, right? By rejoicing, by delighting in it at others, but ultimately to live it. And I think that, you know, Catholicism has a kind of genius in its, you know, ecclesial and sacramental appreciation of what is most really real and truly true and goodly good. And so for that reason, I see it as not just like a means, but as like a living communion which conducts us to the communion of the triune God and does so in surpassing and most excelling fashion. So yeah, I find it to be life-giving and life-living.

excelling fashion. So yeah, I find it to be life-giving and life-living. Second to the question about McCarthy and Gnosticism. Cheers to you. Here we go. Yosef Paladin says, hi, father. Personal question this time, if you don't mind. How did you meet Matt and did you instantly become friends? That's awesome. I met Matt because he emailed me and said, would you come on the podcast to discuss music and, um, or modern music and beauty? Because I'd like given a talk at the parish where I was working at the time in Louisville, Kentucky. I guess he had come across it, you know, thought it might be an interesting theme for the podcast. And so he had me on, but I had like computer problems at the time. And then we troubleshot those. And then I ended up recording from

Bellarmine university's library. And then he had me on later to talk about papal infallibility. And then he was coming to DC at one point. No, he had me down to, you know, where he lived. He lived at the time outside of Atlanta to record a little video for what was at the time, the Matt Fradd show. And then he came up to DC and it was over the course of those encounters that we, yeah, became friends for which I'm grateful. And yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then subsequently we've just had a lot more conversations. Patricia W. says, does God know what choices we will make even before he creates us? He does, right? But he knows them in a way that causes them to transpire contingently or freely. So he knows them in such a way not so as

to fate us or determine us to a fate from which we cannot escape, as if to tie our hands or bind our decision-making, but he does so in such a way as to afford us or to give us a kind of created share, participation, a kind of creative freedom in the unfolding of those choices, such that though they are known in the unfolding of those choices, such that though they are known in the divine eternity and subject to the divine providence, they unfold or they, you know, kind of transpire according to the genuinely integral secondary causality of us whom he has created to know and to love as free persons. All right, Amund325 says, if my sibling refuses to have my nephew baptized,

does that qualify as an emergency that would justify me baptizing him? No, it does not. Or should I focus on trying to convince my sibling to have my nephew baptized? Yes, you should. Bingo. Nice, nice thinking that through. Here we go. Theophilus Sagromo, sorry, my apologies, says, do Catholics really believe that Mary became the queen of heaven? Yes, but I think it's important to understand in what sense queen, not in the sense of like rules over God, but as a kind of sharing in the kingship or headship of Christ or sharing in the kind of sovereignty of God as a created and subordinate instrument of the unfolding of God's plans.

So, just as we have, not just as we have, but in a sense, you know, we have a Father in Heaven, so we have a Mother in Heaven. I put in a sense in the wrong spot in that sentence, so as totally to muddle the concept. But we have a Father in Heaven, right? God. And God gives us, in differentiated fashion, in subordinated fashion, in created fashion, a Mother in heaven, right? God. And God gives us in differentiated fashion and subordinated fashion and created fashion, a mother in heaven as a way by which of supplying for every spiritual need and lack. So it's not because God needs a queen in heaven, or it's not because heaven sometimes changes or some in some way, it's not because her queenship somehow changes like what the heavenly realities are in the very kind of substance of the deity or Godhead.

But it's because God's generous, because God's good, because God had wanted to afford us another gift, and he chose to give it in this form. Okay. Lindsay Clark. That's hilarious. I don't know that I should have put this on, but cheers to you. Could one of you guys tell me, please, how to comment on a comment to the person who commented? That is using their username with an ad sign. I'm dumb on chat. Please be with you all. I suspect that that will be answered in subsequent things. Here we go.

Gavin says, are you familiar with Dietrich von Hildebrand's views in the heart? He believes that the heart or the effective sphere is distinct and at the same level as intellect and will thoughts. Yeah. So I mean, I kind of kind of kind of kind of I follow lockstep with St. Thomas's anthropology. And so I'm not going to track with that. I suspect that Dietrich von Hildebrand has excellent insights. And so far, he is, you know, like a revered philosopher and Catholic intellectual.

And I very much respect the thoughts of Professor Maria Walter, who teaches at Franciscan University of Steubenville. And he was currently preparing a monograph on the heart. And so she has lots of good things to say. I think Dietrich von Hildebrand is actually her godfather, but she's part of this kind of like wider phenomenological tradition, which includes von Hildebrand and her father, Josef Seifert, and some of his colleagues, including, you know, Michael Healy and John Crosby, many of whom taught at University of Dallas and have taught at Franciscan University. So yes, so I suspect that there are great merits to that work. I don't know it, but I would just kind of parrot the anthropology that I have imbibed in the School of St. Thomas Aquinas at the outset there. So boom. Uh-huh. We got some sweet answers. Oh, nice. Super Chat didn't get this until now because i'm a fool hey mike rogan says so grateful for your father pine cheers to you mike rogan thanks so much

all right i'm gonna do a quick little super chat scan super chat scan oh yeah let's go all right i don't even recognize that currency um uh sarah says sunglasses perpetually fall into video game controllers proud face i will I will decode that later tonight. Um, I'll just leave it on the screen for the mutual admiration of all those who are able to see, do there some like serious comments going on here? Thanks you guys for contributing. That's awesome. Um, I am not going to get to a third of these. Holy smokes. All right. I'm going to scan back up. I don't see any more super chats, so I'm going to just find my place and then answer some questions, and then we're going to call it a day, an evening, a night. All right, boom, boom, questions being answered by Hallelujah,

who is the foremost moderator of catholic chats question repeated more things all right some answers uh you probably don't need me to tell you everything that i'm saying right now are we allowed to ask questions answer yes um jennifer young says please pretend we are all five years old not following this at all hey sorry i will uh try better to be more coherent next time that's on me um all right here we go ben yamin says is there a vocation to the single life as in a person is not called to marriage, but also not called to religious life? Also, can a person reject God's vocation? So here we go. Here's my little theory of vocation in a nutshell. I think that there is

only one vocation, and I think that that vocation is to the vision of God in heaven. So that would be the end. To that end, God affords a variety of means. Now, among those means can be included his incarnate son, the church, the sacraments, grace, virtues, gifts of the Holy Spirit, sacramentals, signs of credibility, you know, rational argumentation, etc. There are a variety of ways by which God conducts us to the vision of himself in heaven. And he does so strongly and sweetly. One of those means are states of life, all right? I think we call those states of life

vocations in a kind of analogical way, which is to say that they are partly alike and partly diverse from the one vocation which is to the vision of God in heaven. What is true of that vision of God in heaven, which can be applied or seen in these states of life? Well, it is a kind of covenant love of God, which is permanent, which is faithful, which is fruitful, right? Which is this kind of like a kind of marriage, right? A kind of being wed to the Godhead, whereby the soul is wholly given to and wholly receptive of God's very nature, God's very gift of himself. So, we would call certain states of life vocations insofar as they have that analogical connection with the Godhead. And I think that we would limit the description of vocation to priesthood, religious life, and marriage, because those are vowed or those are promised in such a way as to partake something of that covenant fidelity,

right, that kind of marriage logic, and in a way that's permanent, you know, that's faithful, that's fruitful. Whereas, I don't think that we would attribute that to the single life, because the single life isn't a state in the sense of status, a kind of standing in a stable position with respect to the Godhead, right, by means of some promise or vow, which, you know, kind of fortifies you in that commitment or that relationship. So, does that mean that single persons are second-class citizens? No, because states of life are kind of relative to the one end, right, the one vocation of the vision of God in heaven, and they're kind of situated under means, under other means which are more principled

or which are more important in this conversation or this discussion. So, you have, you know, single persons have the church, they have the sacraments, you know, they have grace and virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit, they have all of these means that God provides for conducting them to the ultimate embrace of their one vocation. And just because they don't have a state of life doesn't mean that they're in some way deficient or doesn't mean that they're in any way lacking. They've been dealt a different hand, but it's for them to play that hand rather than to like redefine the game or to kind of turn their cards in and seek another deal. So yeah, I think that should be cause for consolation, great hope, in that while you may not come into the possession of a state of life, which we would call by analogical extension

a vocation, you are still called to the vocation of the vision of God in heaven, and he affords you efficacious means to that end. So boom, I hope hope that's helpful. Okay. That, my friends, is all we have for today. So, thanks so much for having tuned in. Thanks so much. If you haven't yet, please do like this particular video because it'll help other people to see it down the road. And please do subscribe to the channel if you haven't yet and push the little bell so that way you can be alerted to other videos on the channel, whether Matt goes live or I go live or other things like that. And if you haven't yet checked out Godsplaining, I mentioned it earlier in the show, but I say like in terms of register, I know a couple of people commented that the register of

this was a little bit high at the outset. So that's, you know, my apologies for probably not having explained those mysteries in a way that was more approachable. But I would say like the register of the Thomistic Institute is up here, the register of Pints of the Aquinas is kind of right here, and then God's planning is like right here. So you'll find those conversations to be very approachable and casual, but also to help you cast a contemplative gaze on a variety of things that we encounter in contemporary life. So the tagline for that podcast is Contemplative Preachers, Contemporary Age. And, you know, we'll get into all sorts of things which you may or may not find interesting. So

check out God's Planning, G-O-D-S-P-L-A-I-N-I-N-G. So again, thanks so much for listening. My prayers are for you. Please pray for me, and I'll catch you next time on Pints with Aquinas.